Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T15:06:32.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Output optimization in the Irish plural system1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2015

RYAN BENNETT
RYAN BENNETT*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208366, New Haven, CT 06520-8366, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I argue that a subpattern of Irish plural allomorphy should be analyzed as output optimizing in character. Specifically, I claim that stress-sensitive alternations between the plural suffixes -(e)anna and -(e)acha are conditioned by constraints on metrical well-formedness. This analysis connects with independent facts about the the prosodic prominence of [ax] sequences in Irish phonology. I further argue that an explanatory analysis of these patterns must make use of the notion of surface optimization. Alternative frameworks that eschew surface-oriented optimization mechanisms fail to account for synchronic and diachronic properties of the Irish plural system.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , 01 April 2017 , pp. 229 - 277
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1] This paper has a long history, and many people have contributed to its improvement. Thanks are due to audiences at UC Santa Cruz, WCCFL 28, and CLC 7 for comments on earlier stages of this work. I am also indebted to Junko Itô for extensive advice on this project, and to Judith Aissen, Emily Elfner, Jim McCloskey, Armin Mester, Jaye Padgett, Mary Paster, two anonymous reviewers, and Journal of Linguistics Editor S. J. Hannahs for further feedback.

References

Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90.2, 119–161.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1974. The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological change. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2011. Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). In Maiden, Martin, Goldbach, Maria, Smith, John Charles & Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology, 13–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20.1, 1–42.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Xu, Zheng. 2010. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20.2, 381–411.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to element theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric. 1999. Deletion, insertion, and symmetrical identity. Ms., Harvard University. Available online as ROA-300, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nevins, Andrew & Levine, Jonathan. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88.2, 231–268.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan. 2012. Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. Santa Cruz dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan. 2013. The uniqueness of metrical structure: Rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano. Phonology 30.3, 355–398.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan. To appear. Mayan phonology. Language & Linguistics Compass.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan & Henderson, Robert. 2013. Accent in Uspanteko. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.3, 589–645.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, McGuire, Grant, Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye. 2012. Secondary articulation in Conemara Irish. Ms., Yale University, University of California Santa Cruz, and University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Benus, Stefan & Gafos, Adamantios. 2007. Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian ‘transparent’ vowels. Journal of Phonetics 35.3, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Trommer(ed.), 8–83.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. To appear. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia & Szeredi, Dániel. 2011. Secondary stress in Hungarian: (morpho-)syntactic, not metrical. In Washburn, Mary Byram, McKinney-Bock, Katherine, Varis, Erika, Sawyer, Ann & Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28), 51–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press; Available online at http://www.lingref.com/, document #2435.Google Scholar
Blankenhorn, Virginia. 1981. Pitch, quantity and stress in Munster Irish. Éigse 18.2, 225–250.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32.2, 117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Harbour, Daniel. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Trommer (ed.), 195–235.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan. 2007. Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies. Lingua 117.6, 903–927.Google Scholar
Breatnach, Risteard. 1947. The Irish of Ring, Co. Waterford. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2007. Allomorphy – selection, not optimization. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of analysis?, 63–91. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2002. A note on diphthongization before tense sonorants in Irish: An articulatory explanation. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7, 129–148.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2008. Irish nouns: A reference guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. Yearbook of morphology67–94. [Reprinted in Charles W. Kreidler (ed.). 2001. Phonology: Critical concepts, vol. 5: The interface with morphology and syntax, 111–139. London: Routledge.]Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Luschützky, Hans, Pfeifferand, Oskar & Rennison, John (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 17–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic. 1996. Resolving hiatus. Los Angeles dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Clements, G.N. 1986. Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In Bogers, Koen, van der Hulst, Harry & Mous, Maarten (eds.), The phonological representation of suprasegmentals: Studies on African languages offered to John M. Stewart on his 60th birthday, 317–336. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Abigail & McCarthy, John J.. 1998. Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology. Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, vol. 12, 53–137; Available online as ROA-25, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Dalton, Martha & Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe. 2005. Tonal alignment in Irish dialects. Language and Speech 48.4, 441.Google Scholar
Dalton, Martha & Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe. 2007. Melodic alignment and micro-dialect variation in Connemara Irish. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Riad, Tomas (eds.), Tones and tunes, vol. 2, 293–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002a. The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19.1, 1–32.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002b. The formal expression of markedness, University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2004. Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21.2, 145–199.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2007a. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 281–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2007b. Quality of data in metrical stress theory. Cambridge Extra magazine2.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2014. Evaluating evidence for stress systems. In van der Hulst(ed.), 149–193.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul & Kingston, John. 2013. Synchronic explanation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.2, 287–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose & Wolf, Matthew. To appear. Outwards-sensitive phonologically-conditioned allomorphy in Nez Perce. In Vera Gribanova & Stephanie Shih (eds.), The morphosyntax–phonology connection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1991. Munster Irish stress. In Mester, Armin & Robbins, Scarlett (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz, 18–32. Santa Cruz, CA: UC Santa Cruz Linguistics Research Center.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry. 1998. Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: Complexity and visibility. Phonology 15.3, 317–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elías-Ulloa, José. 2006. Theoretical aspects of Panoan metrical phonology: Disyllabic footing and contextual syllable weight. Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, Kathryn. 2009. Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26.2, 269–302.Google Scholar
Gauch, Hugh. 2003. Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16.1, 29–54.Google Scholar
González, Carolina. 2005. Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy in Panoan: Towards an analysis. In Heinz, Jeffrey, Martin, Andrew & Pertsova, Katya (eds.), Papers in phonology 6 (UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 11), 39–56. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der Hulst(ed.), 83–118.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria & Becker, Michael. 2013. Nonce words show that Russian yer alternations are governed by the grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.3, 735–765.Google Scholar
Green, Antony Dubach. 1996. Stress placement in Munster Irish. In Dobrin, Lise, Singer, Kora & McNair, Lisa (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 32, vol. 1, 77–91; Available online as ROA-120, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Green, Antony Dubach. 1997. The prosodic structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx. Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1979. Formal vs. functional considerations in phonology. In Brogyanyi, Bela (ed.), Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 325–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1986. The obligatory-branching parameter in metrical theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4.2, 185–228.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Bloomington, Indiana: Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Revised version of 1980 MIT Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael, Moravscik, Edith, Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick & Wheatly, Kathleen (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. I: General papers, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie. 2013. OTSoft 2.3.2. Computer program. Retrieved fromhttp://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1984. Syllable structure and sonority hierarchies in Irish. In Papers for the fifth international phonology meeting, 123–128.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1985a. The interrelationship of epenthesis and syncope: Evidence from Dutch and Irish. Lingua 65.3, 229–249.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1985b. Reduction of allomorphy and the plural in Irish. Ériu 36, 143–162.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1994. Historical developments and synchronic states: Cases from Irish phonology. Folia linguistica historica 15.2, 47–69.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2011. The dialects of Irish: Study of a changing landscape. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmer, Nils. 1942. The Irish language in Rathlin Island, Co. Antrim. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.Google Scholar
Holmer, Nils. 1962. The dialects of Co. Clare, part i. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.Google Scholar
House, Arthur S. 1961. On vowel duration in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33.9, 1174–1178.Google Scholar
Hughes, Art. 1994. Gaeilge Uladh. In McCone, Kim, McManus, Damian, Háinle, Cathal Ó, Williams, Nicholas & Breatnach, Liam (eds.), Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta, 611–660. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, St. Patrick’s College.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45.1, 133–171.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel. 2013. Head-dependent asymmetries in Munster Irish prosody. Nordlyd 40.1, 66–107; Available online at http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/2502.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1992/2003. Weak layering and word binarity. In Honma, Takeru, Okazaki, Masao, Tabata, Toshiyuki & Tanaka, Shin-ichi (eds.), A new century of phonology and phonological theory: A festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 26–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha; Originally published 1992 as Linguistic Research Center LRC-92-09, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barıs¸ (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 135–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic typology. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 430–458. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1992. Are there any truly quantity-insensitive systems?In Buszard-Welcher, Laura, Lee, Lionel & Weigel, William (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–132. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1993. Shapes of the generalized trochee. In Mead, Jonathan (ed.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 11, 298–312. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology, 155–171. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Published by Garland Press, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony. Berkeley dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1997. Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9.1, 157–187.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni. 2010. Phonological and morphological conditions on affix order in Huave. Morphology 20.1, 133–163.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1.3, 291–306.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis. 1976. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59, 1208–1221.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2012. Fell-swoop onset deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 43.2, 309–321.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, Ladefoged, Jenny, Turk, Alice, Hind, Kevin & Skilton, St. John. 1998. Phonetic structures of Scottish Gaelic. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 28.1–2, 1–41.Google Scholar
Lazar-Meyn, Heidi. 1982. Modern Irish grammars and the plural marker -acha . In Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 196–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2, 249–336.Google Scholar
Lucas, Leslie. 1979. Grammar of Ros Goill Irish, Co. Donegal. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, The Queen’s University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Mac An Bhaird, Alan. 1974. Infhilleadh na n-ainmfhocal i nGaeilge na Mumhan: Dearcadh stairiúil. Ériu 25, 200–252.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary, Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard & Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive psychology 29.3, 189–256.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew. 2007. The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio & Regueira, Xosé Luís. 2008. Spirant approximants in Galician. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38.1, 51–68.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1996. External allomorphy as emergence of the unmarked. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 473–483. Salford, Manchester: University of Salford, European Studies Research Institute; [Reprinted in John J. McCarthy (ed.). 2004. Optimality Theory in Phonology: A reader, 513–522. Oxford: Blackwell.]Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38.4, 715–735.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Daniel. 2013. Imokilly Irish. Ms. Available online at http://tcd.academia.edu/DanMcCarthy.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38, 169–195.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, Pater, Joe & Pruitt, Kathryn. To appear. Cross-level interactions in Harmonic Serialism. In John McCarthy & Joe Pater (eds.), Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Keating, Patricia (ed.), Papers in laboratory phonology III: Phonological structure and phonetic form, 191–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75–138.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008a. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying theory to data. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008b. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.3, 499–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of morphology, 79–154. Available online as ROA-7, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Gonzàlez, Mercè (ed.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 24, 333–379.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12.1, 1–61.Google Scholar
Mhac an Fhailigh, Éamonn. 1980. The Irish of Erris, Co. Mayo: A phonemic study. The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25.1, 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Beth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2357–2382. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newlin-Łukowicz, Luiza. 2012. Polish stress: Looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional system. Phonology 29.2, 271–329.Google Scholar
Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe. 1995. Irish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 25.1, 34–39.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire. 1991. Topics in the phonology of Irish. Amherst dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire. 1999. Syllables and phonotactics in Irish. In van der Hulst, Harry & Ritter, Nancy (eds.), The syllable: Views and facts, 551–575. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire, Welby, Pauline & Espesser, Robert. 2012. Is the syllabification of Irish a typological exception? An experimental study. Speech Communication 54, 68–91.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2013. The architecture of derivational OT: Evidence from Icelandic syncope. In Fainleib, Yelena & adn Yangsook Park, Nicholas LaCara (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 41, 55–68. Amherst, MA: GLSA; Available online at http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Mark.J.Norris-1/research/syncope_nels_paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1990. Secondary epenthesis and stress in Munster Irish. Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic colloquium, vol. 10, 1–23.Google Scholar
Ó Baoill, Dónall. 1996. An teanga bheo: Gaeilge Uladh. Baile Átha Cliath (Dublin): Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.Google Scholar
Ó Buachalla, Breandán. 1988. MacNeill’s Law and the plural marker -(e)an . Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 88C, 39–60.Google Scholar
Ó Buachalla, Breandán. 2003. An teanga bheo: Gaeilge Chléire. Baile Átha Cliath (Dublin): Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.Google Scholar
Ó Cuív, Brian. 1944. The Irish of West Muskerry, Co. Cork: A phonetic study. The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Ó Curnáin, Brian. 2007. The Irish of Iorras Aithneach, County Galway. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Ó Dochartaigh, Cathair. 1978. Unstressed long vowel shortening in Irish: The evidence from Achill. Éigse 17.3, 331–358.Google Scholar
Ó Dochartaigh, Cathair. 1987. Dialects of Ulster Irish. Belfast: Queens University of Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Mícheál. 1991. Modern Irish: Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Mícheál. 1995. Learning Irish: An introductory self-tutor. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, John & Busà, M. Grazia. 1995. Nasal loss before voiceless fricatives: A perceptually-based sound change. Rivista di Linguistica 7, 125–144.Google Scholar
O’Rahilly, Thomas F. 1932. Irish dialects past and present: With chapters on Scottish and Manx. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies; Reprinted 1976.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1989. Contributions to the study of word stress in Irish. Ériu 40, 147–178.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 2000. Gaeilge Chorca Duibhne. Baile Átha Cliath (Dublin): Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 2008. Word stress in Munster Irish. Éigse 36, 87–112.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye & Kochetov, Alexei (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–333. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. Berkeley dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word structure 2.1, 18–47.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2013. Rethinking the ‘duplication problem’. Lingua 126, 78–91.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2010. Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, Steve (ed.), Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, 123–154. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Ullman, Michael. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 456–463.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1991. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Deaton, Karen, Noske, Manuela & Ziolkowski, Michael (eds.), CLS 26(2): Papers from the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, 355–398. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell; Revision of 1993 technical report, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Available online as ROA-537, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Quiggin, Edmund. 1906. A dialect of Donegal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Samuel. 1997. The distribution of prevocalic vowels. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15.1, 139–180.Google Scholar
Royal Irish Academy. 2007. Dictionary of the Irish language: Based mainly on Old and Middle Irish materials. Available online at http://www.dil.ie/index.asp (accessed May 2013).Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin. 2011. Gradient syllable weight and weight universals in quantitative metrics. Phonology 28.3, 413–454.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90.2, 309–341.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill, Walsh Dickey, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 439–470. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications; [Also in James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth (eds.). Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, 187–214.]Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2008. Phonological constraints are not directly phonetic. In Edwards, Rodney, Midtlyng, Patrick, Sprague, Colin & Stensrud, Kjersti G. (eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 41, 457–471. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Sommerfelt, Alf. 1922. The dialect of Torr, Co. Donegal. Christiana: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Stenson, Nancy. 1978. Plural formation in Ráth Cairn. Éigse 17, 495–536.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Johnson, Keith & Hume, Elizabeth (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 219–250. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stockman, Gerard. 1974. The Irish of Achill, Co. Mayo. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Strachan, John. 1905a. Contributions to the history of Middle Irish declension. Transactions of the Philological Society 25.2, 202–246.Google Scholar
Strachan, John. 1905b. Old Irish paradigms and selections from the Old Irish glosses. Dublin: School of Irish Learning; Reprinted by the Royal Irish Academy, 1929.Google Scholar
Stüber, Karin. 1997. The inflection of masculine and feminine n-stems in Irish. Ériu 48, 229–237.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija, Fletcher, Janet & Butcher, Andrew. 2014. Lexical stress in Pitjantjatjara. Journal of Phonetics 42, 52–66.Google Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies,; [Reprinted 1961, 1990.]Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1996. French liaison and elision revisited: A unified account within Optimality Theory. Aspects of Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV, 433–455. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; Available online as ROA-15, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu/.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen(ed.). 2012. The phonology and morphology of exponence: The state of the art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry(ed.). 2014. Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich. 1959. Gaeilge Theilinn. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich. 1969. Linguistic atlas and survey of Irish dialects. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies; 4 volumes, Vol. 4 with Colm Ó Baoill.Google Scholar
Walsh, John. 2010. Contests and contexts: The Irish language and Ireland’s socio-economic development. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
Wigger, Arndt. 1973. Towards a generative phonology of the Modern Irish noun. Linguistics 11.109, 61–77.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30, 945–982.Google Scholar
Windisch, Ernst. 1882. A concise Irish grammar with pieces for reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Amherst dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. To appear. Lexical insertion occurs in the phonological component. Understanding allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1994. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie. 2010. A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28.2, 417–472.Google Scholar