The Syntax–Prosody Interface

Literature Cited

1. Agbayani B, Golston C 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86:133–67
   [Google Scholar]
2. Agbayani B, Golston C 2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonology 33:1–42
   [Google Scholar]
3. Aissen J 2000. Prosodic conditions on anaphora and clitics in Jakaltek. The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages A Carnie, E Guilfoyle 185–200 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
4. Akinlabi A, Liberman M 2000. The tonal phonology of Yoruba clitics. Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax B Gerlach, J Grijzenhout 31–62 Amsterdam: Benjamins
   [Google Scholar]
5. Anderson SR 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
6. Anttila A 2016. Phonological effects on syntactic variation. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:115–37
   [Google Scholar]
7. Arnhold A 2014. Prosodic structure and focus realization in West Greenlandic. See Jun 2014 216–51
8. Arnhold A, Compton R, Elfner E 2018. Prosody and wordhood in South Baffin Inuktitut. Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas M Keough, N Weber, A Anghelescu, S Chen, E Guntly et al.30–39 Vancouver: Univ. B. C. Work. Pap. Linguist.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Arregi K 2006. Stress and islands in Northern Bizkaian Basque. Studies in Historical and Basque Linguistics: Dedicated to the Memory of R. L. Trask J Hualde, JA Lakarra 81–106 Donostia, Spain: Diput. Foral Gipuzkoa
   [Google Scholar]
10. Aylett M, Turk A 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Lang. Speech 47:31–56
    [Google Scholar]
11. Beckman M, Pierrehumbert J 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology 3:255–309
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bennett R 2013. The uniqueness of metrical structure: rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano. Phonology 30:355–98
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bennett R 2015. Review of Sun-Ah Jun (ed.) 2014. Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press xv + 587 Phonology 32337–50
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bennett R 2018. Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Glossa 3:67
    [Google Scholar]
15. Bennett R, Elfner E, McCloskey J 2016. Lightest to the right: an apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguist. Inq. 47:169–234
    [Google Scholar]
16. Bickel B, Hildebrandt K, Schiering R 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: a probabilistic typology. Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations J Grijzenhout, B Kabak 47–75 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
17. Booij G 1996. Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. Linguist. Rev. 13:219–42
    [Google Scholar]
18. Byrd D, Saltzman E 1998. Intragestural dynamics of multiple prosodic boundaries. J. Phon. 26:173–99
    [Google Scholar]
19. Chen M 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology 4:109–50
    [Google Scholar]
20. Chen M 1990. What must phonology know about syntax?. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 19–46
21. Chen MY 2000. Tone Sandhi: Patterns Across Chinese Dialects Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
22. Chen Y, Yuan J 2007. A corpus study of the 3rd tone sandhi in Standard Chinese. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH 2007) H van Hamme, van Son R 2749–52 Baixas, Fr.: Int. Speech Commun. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Chomsky N 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
24. Chomsky N 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
25. Chomsky N 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 1–52 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
26. Chomsky N 2008. On phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud R Freidin, C Otero, ML Zubizarreta 133–66 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
27. Chomsky N, Halle M 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row
28. Cinque G 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguist. Inq. 24:239–398
    [Google Scholar]
29. Clemens LE 2014. Prosodic noun incorporation and verb-initial syntax PhD thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
30. Cole J 2015. Prosody in context: a review. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30:1–31
    [Google Scholar]
31. Cooper WE, Paccia-Cooper J 1980. Syntax and Speech Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
32. de Pijper JR, Sanderman A 1994. On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2037–47
    [Google Scholar]
33. Dresher BE 1994. The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language 70:1–52
    [Google Scholar]
34. Elfner E 2012. Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish PhD thesis Univ. Mass. Amherst:
35. Elfner E 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 33:1169–208
    [Google Scholar]
36. Elfner E 2018. The syntax–prosody interface: current theoretical approaches and outstanding questions. Linguist. Vanguard 4:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
37. Elordieta G 2007. Minimum size constraints on intermediate phrases. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI) J Trouvain, WJ Barry 1021–24 London: Int. Phon. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Elordieta G 2008. An overview of theories of the syntax–phonology interface. Int. J. Basque Linguist. Philol. 42:209–86
    [Google Scholar]
39. Elordieta G 2015. Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque. Phonology 32:49–78
    [Google Scholar]
40. Ferreira F 1991. Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. J. Mem. Lang. 30:210–33
    [Google Scholar]
41. Ferreira F 1993. Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 100:233–53
    [Google Scholar]
42. Féry C 2016. Intonation and Prosodic Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
43. Féry C, Ishihara S 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
44. Féry C, Truckenbrodt H 2005. Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Stud. Linguist. 59:223–43
    [Google Scholar]
45. Fitzpatrick-Cole J 1996. Reduplication meets the phonological phrase in Bengali. Linguist. Rev. 13:305–56
    [Google Scholar]
46. Fougeron C, Keating PA 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:3728–40
    [Google Scholar]
47. Frota S 2012. Prosodic structure, constituents and their implementation. The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology A Cohn, C Fougeron, M Huffman 255–65 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
48. Frota S, Vigário M 2013. Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya and Mariko Sugahara (eds.) 2012. Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. (Advances in Optimality Theory.) Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox. Pp. xv + 528. Phonology 30:165–72
    [Google Scholar]
49. Gee JP, Grosjean F 1983. Performance structures: a psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cogn. Psychol. 15:411–58
    [Google Scholar]
50. Ghini M 1993. Phi-formation in Italian: a new proposal. Tor. Work. Pap. Linguist. 12:41–78
    [Google Scholar]
51. Gussenhoven C 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
52. Halpern A 1995. Topics in the displacement and morphology of clitics PhD thesis Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
53. Hayes B 1990. Precompiled phrasal phonology. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 85–108
54. Hayes B 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
55. Hayes B, Lahiri A 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 9:47–96
    [Google Scholar]
56. Hyman L, Katamba F, Walusimbi L 1987. Luganda and the strict layer hypothesis. Phonology 4:87–108
    [Google Scholar]
57. Inkelas S 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon New York: Garland
58. Inkelas S, Zec D 1990. The Phonology–Syntax Connection Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
59. Inkelas S, Zec D 1995. Syntax–phonology interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory JA Goldsmith 535–49 Cambridge, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
60. Ishihara S 2015. Syntax–phonology interface. The Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology H Kubozono 569–618 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
61. Ito J, Mester A 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Y Miyamoto, M Ochi 97–111 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Ito J, Mester A 2009. The extended prosodic word. Phonological Domains: Universals and Derivations J Grijzenhout, B Kabak 135–94 Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
63. Ito J, Mester A 2010. The onset of the prosodic word. Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation S Parker 227–60 London: Equinox
    [Google Scholar]
64. Ito J, Mester A 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. Prosody Matters T Borowsky, S Kawahara, T Shinya, M Sugahara 280–303 London: Equinox
    [Google Scholar]
65. Ito J, Mester A 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124:20–40
    [Google Scholar]
66. Jun S-A 1998. The accentual phrase in the Korean prosodic hierarchy. Phonology 15:189–226
    [Google Scholar]
67. Jun S-A 2005. Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
68. Jun S-A 2014. Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
69. Jun S-A, Elordieta G 1997. Intonational structure in Lekeitio Basque. Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications A Botinis, G Kouroupetroglou, G Carayiannis 193–96 Athens: Int. Speech Commun. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Kaisse EM 1985. Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology San Diego: Academic
71. Kaisse EM, Zwicky A 1987. Phonology Yearbook 4: Syntactic Conditions on Phonological Rules Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
72. Kandybowicz J 2009. Embracing edges: syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 27:305–44
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kandybowicz J 2015. On prosodic vacuity and verbal resumption in Asante Twi. Linguist. Inq. 46:243–72
    [Google Scholar]
74. Kandybowicz J 2017. On prosodic variation and the distribution of wh-in-situ. Linguist. Var. 17:111–48
    [Google Scholar]
75. Keating PA, Cho T, Fougeron C, Hsu C-S 2003. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. Phonetic Interpretation J Local, R Ogden, R Temple 145–63 Pap. Lab. Phonol 6 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
76. Kilbourn-Ceron O, Sonderegger M 2018. Boundary phenomena and variability in Japanese high vowel devoicing. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:175–217
    [Google Scholar]
77. Kilbourn-Ceron O, Wagner M, Clayards M 2017. The effect of production planning locality on external sandhi: a study in /t/. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc15 pp http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003119
    [Google Scholar]
78. Kisseberth C, Abasheikh M 1974. Vowel length in Chi Mwi:ni: a case study of the role of grammar in phonology. CLS 10 Parasession on Natural Phonology193–209 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Klatt D 1975. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. J. Phon. 3:129–40
    [Google Scholar]
80. Kubozono H 1989. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6:39–67
    [Google Scholar]
81. Ladd DR 1986. Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3:311–40
    [Google Scholar]
82. Ladd DR 1988. Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84:530–44
    [Google Scholar]
83. Ladd DR 2008. Intonational Phonology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
84. Lehiste I 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7:107–23
    [Google Scholar]
85. Martínez-Paricio V 2013. An exploration of minimal and maximal metrical feet PhD thesis Univ. Tromsø Tromsø, Nor.:
86. Martínez-Paricio V, Kager R 2015. The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: layered feet and non-intervention constraints. Phonology 32:459–504
    [Google Scholar]
87. McCarthy JJ 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Can. J. Linguist. 38:169–95
    [Google Scholar]
88. McCawley JD 1968. The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese The Hague: Mouton
89. Myrberg S 2013. Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30:73–124
    [Google Scholar]
90. Nespor M, Vogel I 1986. Prosodic Phonology Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
91. Newell H 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases PhD thesis McGill Univ. Montreal, Can.:
92. Newell H, Piggott G 2014. Interactions at the syntax–phonology interface: evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150:332–62
    [Google Scholar]
93. Odden D 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. See Kaisse & Zwicky 1987 13–36
94. Padgett J 2014. On the origins of the prosodic word in Russian Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody Dublin: May 20–23
95. Pak M 2005. Explaining branchingness effects in phrasal phonology. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics J Alderete, C-H Han, A Kochetov 308–16 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
96. Pak M 2008. The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes PhD thesis Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
97. Peperkamp S 1997. Prosodic Words The Hague: Holland Acad. Graph.
98. Pierrehumbert J, Beckman M 1988. Japanese Tone Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
99. Price P, Ostendorf M, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Fong G 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90:2956–70
    [Google Scholar]
100. Prieto P 2005. Syntactic and eurhythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Stud. Linguist. 59:194–222
     [Google Scholar]
101. Prieto P 2014. The intonational phonology of Catalan. See Jun 2014 43–80
102. Prince A 1991. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS26(2): Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology K Deaton, M Noske, M Ziolkowski 355–98 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
103. Richards N 2010. Uttering Trees Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
104. Richards N 2016. Contiguity Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
105. Rotenberg J 1978. The Syntax of Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT
106. Ruppel A 2017. The Cambridge Introduction to Sanskrit Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
107. Ryan K 2018. Prosodic end-weight reflects phrasal stress. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9411-6
     [Crossref]
108. Sabbagh J 2013. Word order and prosodic-structure constraints in Tagalog. Syntax 17:40–89
     [Google Scholar]
109. Samuels B 2009. The structure of phonological theory PhD thesis Harvard Univ. Cambridge, MA:
110. Scheer T 2010. A Guide to Morphosyntax–Phonology Interface Theories: How Extra-Phonological Information Is Treated in Phonology Since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale Berlin: de Gruyter
111. Scheer T 2012.a Chunk definition in phonology: prosodic constituency versus phase structure. Modules and Interfaces M Bloch-Trojnar, A Bloch-Rozmej 221–53 Lublin, Pol.: Cathol. Univ. Lublin
     [Google Scholar]
112. Scheer T 2012.b Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation Boston: de Gruyter
113. Schiering R, Bickel B, Hildebrandt K 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. J. Linguist. 46:657–709
     [Google Scholar]
114. Seidl A 2001. Minimal Indirect Reference: A Theory of the Syntax–Phonology Interface London: Routledge
115. Selkirk EO 1980.a Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. Juncture M Aronoff, M-L Kean 107–29 Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri
     [Google Scholar]
116. Selkirk EO 1980.b The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguist. Inq. 11:563–605
     [Google Scholar]
117. Selkirk EO 1981 (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Nordic Prosody T Fretheim 111–40 Trondheim, Nor.: Tapir
     [Google Scholar]
118. Selkirk EO 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
119. Selkirk EO 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3 C Ewen, J Anderson 371–405 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
120. Selkirk EO 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. Papers in Optimality Theory J Beckman, LW Dickey, S Urbanczyk 439–70 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
121. Selkirk EO 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. Prosody: Theory and Experiment M Horne 231–61 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
122. Selkirk EO 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136:35–73
     [Google Scholar]
123. Selkirk EO 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory JA Goldsmith, J Riggle, ACL Yu 435–84 Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
124. Selkirk EO, Lee S 2015. Phonology 321
125. Selkirk EO, Shen T 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 313–37
126. Selkirk EO, Tateishi K 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda C Georgopoulos, R Ishihara 519–44 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
     [Google Scholar]
127. Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Turk A 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 25:193–247
     [Google Scholar]
128. Shih S 2017. Phonological influences in syntactic alternations. The Morphosyntax–Phonology Connection V Gribanova, S Shih 223–54 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
129. Snedeker J, Trueswell J 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. J. Mem. Lang. 48:103–30
     [Google Scholar]
130. Truckenbrodt H 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
131. Truckenbrodt H 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguist. Inq. 30:219–56
     [Google Scholar]
132. Truckenbrodt H 2002. Variation in p-phrasing in Bengali. Linguist. Var. Yearb. 2:259–303
     [Google Scholar]
133. Truckenbrodt H 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology P de Lacy 435–56 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
134. Tsay J, Myers J 1996. Taiwanese tone sandhi as allomorph selection. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on the Role of Learnability in Grammatical Theory395–405 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
135. Turk A 2010. Does prosodic constituency signal relative predictability? A Smooth Signal Redundancy hypothesis. Lab. Phonol. 1:227–62
     [Google Scholar]
136. Turk A, Nakai S, Sugahara M 2006. Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: a practical guide. Methods in Empirical Prosody Research S Sudhoff, D Lenertova, RMS Pappert, P Augurzky, I Mleinek et al.1–28 Berlin: de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
137. Turk A, Shattuck-Hufnagel S 2000. Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. J. Phon. 28:397–440
     [Google Scholar]
138. Vigário M 1999. On the prosodic status of stressless function words in European Portuguese. Studies on the Phonological Word TA Hall, U Kleinhenz 255–94 Amsterdam: Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
139. Vigário M 2003. The Prosodic Word in European Portuguese Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
140. Vigário M 2010. Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: recursive nodes or an independent domain. Linguist. Rev. 27:485–530
     [Google Scholar]
141. Vogel I 2009. The status of the Clitic Group. Phonological Domains: Universals and Derivations J Grijzenhout, B Kabak 15–46 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
142. Wagner M 2005. Prosody and recursion PhD thesis MIT Cambridge, MA:
143. Wagner M 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 28:183–237
     [Google Scholar]
144. Wagner M 2012. Locality in phonology and production planning. Proceedings of Phonology in the 21st Century: Papers in Honour of Glyne Piggott J Loughran, A McKillen 1–18 Montreal, Can.: McGill Work. Pap.
     [Google Scholar]
145. Wagner M 2015. Phonological evidence in syntax. Syntax—Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook T Kiss, A Alexiadou 1154–98 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
146. Wagner M, Watson D 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in phonology: z review. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:905–45
     [Google Scholar]
147. Watson D, Breen M, Gibson E 2006. The role of syntactic obligatoriness in the production of intonational boundaries. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32:1045–56
     [Google Scholar]
148. Watson D, Gibson E 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 19:713–55
     [Google Scholar]
149. Werle A 2009. Word, phrase, and clitic prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian PhD thesis Univ. Mass. Amherst:
150. Wightman CW, Shattuck-Hufnagel S, Ostendorf M, Price PJ 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:1707–17
     [Google Scholar]
151. Zec D, Inkelas S 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 365–78