Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:23:56.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wide-domain r-effects in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

JOHN HARRIS
JOHN HARRIS*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Author's address: Linguistics, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The syllable has been credited with hosting a wide range of segmental patterns in phonology. However, there is increasing evidence that many of these patterns have a broader prosodic scope than is suggested by established syllabic analyses. Non-rhoticity is one of a collection of r-related effects in English that illustrate this point. Some of these effects have to do with the distribution of r itself: it can appear in positions that can be specified syllabically only by enriching prosodic theory in undesirable ways. Others have to do with the influence r exerts on neighbouring segments, particularly coronal consonants and preceding stressed vowels. Specifying the phonological context of these segmental effects requires explicit reference to the foot and the word rather than the syllable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 329 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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 is a heavily reworked version of a draft that appeared in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18 (2006). I'm grateful to Stuart Davis, Andrew Nevins and the anonymous JL process for valued comments on earlier drafts.

References

REFERENCES

Aitken, A. J. 1984. Scottish dialects and accents. In Trudgill, Peter (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 94–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akin & Urua, Eno-Abasi. 2002. Foot structure in the Ibibio verb. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23, 119–160.Google Scholar
Alwan, Abeer, Narayanan, Shrikanth & Haker, Katherine. 1997. Towards articulatory-acoustic models of liquid consonants, part II: The rhotics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101, 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to element theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. 1969. Introduction to Southern States phonetics: Chapters 5 and 6. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 105–203.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy & Thomas, Erik. 1998. Some aspects of African-American Vernacular English phonology. In Mufwene, Salikoko S., Rickford, John R., Bailey, Guy & Baugh, John (eds.), African American English: Structure, history, and use, 85–109. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barry, William, Klein, Cordula & Köser, Stephanie. 1999. Speech production evidence for ambisyllabicity in German. Phonus 4, 87–102. [Institute of Phonetics, University of the Saarland.]Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. [Published 1999, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), Companion to phonology, 2019–2048. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & McMahon, April. 2006. English phonology and morphology. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 382–410. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2003. The independent nature of phonotactic constraints. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 375–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni J. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. [Published 1990, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Botma, Bert. 2004. Phonological aspects of nasality: An Element-Based Dependency approach. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In Bell-Berti, Fredericka & Lawrence, Raphael J. (eds.), Producing speech: Contemporary issues for Katherine Safford Harris, 19–34. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Fiona, Gick, Bryan, Wilson, Ian & Vatikiotis-Bateson, Eric. 2010. Spatial and temporal properties of gestures in North American English /r/. Language and Speech 53, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, Paul G. 1999. Abstractness in phonology and extrinsic phonetic interpretation: The case of liquids in English. The 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS14), 105–108.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Cho, Mi-Hui. 2003. The distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops in American English and Korean: An alignment approach with typological implications. Linguistics 41, 607–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre C. & Freeman, Donald C.. 1968. A dialect study of American r's by X-ray motion picture. Linguistics 44, 29–68.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerry & Foulkes, Paul. 2001. Variability in (r) production – instrumental perspectives. In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 174–184.Google Scholar
Escure, Geneviève. 1977. Hierarchies and phonological weakening. Lingua 43, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallows, Deborah. 1981. Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. Journal of Linguistics 17, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerry. 2000. Another chapter in the story of /r/: ‘Labio-dental’ variants in British English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4, 30–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan. 2004. Articulatory correlates of ambisyllabicity in English glides and liquids. In , Local et al. (eds.), 222–236Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Campbell, Fiona, Oh, Sunyoung & Tamburri-Watt, Linda. 2006. Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids. Journal of Phonetics 34, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1989. Licensing, inalterability, and harmonic rule application. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 25.1. 145–156.Google Scholar
González, Carolina. 2007. Typological evidence for the separation between stress and foot structure. In Miestamo, Matti & Wälchi, Bernhard (eds.), New challenges in typology: Broadening the horizons and redefining the foundations, 55–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, Robert J. 1964. Scotch-Irish urban speech in Ulster. In Adams, George Brendan (ed.), Ulster dialects: An introductory symposium, 163–191. Cultra, Co. Down: Ulster Folk Museum.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1999. The phonology of English: A prosodic Optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 1996. Psychophonology. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol 1, 281–304. Salford: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1985. Phonological variation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1990. Derived phonological contrasts. In , Ramsaran (ed.), 87–105.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1996. On the trail of short u. English World-Wide 17, 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1997. Licensing Inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 17, 315–370.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 2004. Release the captive coda: The foot as a domain of phonetic interpretation. In , Local et al. (eds.), 103–129.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–42.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff. 2000. Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip & Docherty, Gerry (eds.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John & Urua, Eno-Abasi. 2001. Lenition degrades information: Consonant allophony in Ibibio. Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in Progress 13, 72–105. [University College London]Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah & Slater, Andrew. 1994. Spread of CV and V-to-V coarticulation in British English: Implications for the intelligibility of synthetic speech. ICSLP 94: The 1994 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 1, 57–60.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1982. Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heid, Sebastian & Hawkins, Sarah. 2000. An acoustical study of long-domain /r/ and /l/ coarticulation. The 5th Seminar on Speech Production: Models and Data (ISCA), Munich, 77–80.Google Scholar
Heuvel, Henk van den & Cucchiarini, Catia. 2001. /r/-deletion in Dutch: Rumours or reality? In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 185–198.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 2006. Licensing constraints in phonology. The Linguistic Review 23, 383–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval. 1982. An overview of autosegmental and metrical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part I, 1–14. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. [Published 1988 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Bariş (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 135–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar M. & Halle, Morris. 1962. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17, 187–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909. A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part 1: Sounds and spellings. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 2004. Place assimilation. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 58–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1980, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia, Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cécile & Hsu, Chai-Shune. 2004. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In , Local et al. (eds.), 145–163.Google Scholar
Kelly, John & Local, John K.. 1986. Long-domain resonance patterns in English. The IEE Conference on Speech Input/Output: Techniques and applications, 304–309. London: Institute of Electronic Engineers.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 421–442.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. 1999. Physiological organization of syllables: A review. Journal of Phonetics 27, 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreidler, Charles W. 2003. The pronunciation of English: A coursebook, 2nd edn.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans & McDavid, Raven I. Jr. 1961. The pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger & Anderson, John M.. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, Eleanor, Scobbie, James M. & Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2011. The social stratification of tongue shape for postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15, 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.). 2004. Phonetic interpretation (Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Warren. 2012. Pre-R dentalisation in northern England. English Language and Linguistics 16, 361–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall Denton, Jeannette. 2001. Phonetic insights into the articulation of early West Germanic /r/. In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 159–172.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38, 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology (RuCC-TR-32). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. [Reprinted 1999 in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), Phonological theory: The essential readings, Oxford: Blackwell, 102–136.]Google Scholar
McMahon, April, Foulkes, Paul & Tollfree, Laura. 1994. Gestural representation and lexical phonology. Phonology 11, 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, Baker, Adam & Archangeli, Diana. 2010. Variability and homogeneity in American English /r/ allophony and /s/ retraction. In D'Imperio, Mariapaola, Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 10 (Phonology and Phonetics), 699–730. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Morgan, Lucia C. 1970. The status of /r/ among North Carolina speakers. In Bronstein, Arthur J., Shaver, Claude L. & Stevens, Cj. (eds.), Essays in honor of C. M. Wise, 167–86. Hannibal, MO: Speech Association of America.Google Scholar
Mullooly, Richard. 2003. An electromagnetic articulographic study of rhotic consonants in English. The 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS15), Barcelona, 2265–2268.Google Scholar
Mullooly, Richard. 2004. An electromagnetic articulography study of alternating [r] and the effects of stress on rhotic consonants. Ph.D. dissertation, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1988. Postvocalic /r/ as an index of integration into the BEV speech community. American Speech 63, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, Shrikanth, Alwan, Abeer & Haker, Katherine. 1997. Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data, part I: The laterals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101, 1064–1077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire. 1994. Irish palatalisation and the representation of place features. Phonology 11, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye. 1993. Inherent VPlace (Report LRC-93-09). University of California Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank (ed.). 1970. Prosodic analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, Mary. 2006. The interaction between metrical structure and tone in Kera. Phonology 23, 259–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Talkin, David. 1992. Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In Docherty, Gerry & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Gesture, segment, prosody (Papers in Laboratory Phonology 2), 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsaran, Susan (ed.). 1990. Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reese, George H. 1941. The pronunciation of ‘shrimp’, ‘shrub’ and similar words. American Speech 16, 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1996. Shortening and ambisyllabicity in English. Phonology 13, 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, Blondeau, Hélène & Charity, Anne. 2001. Individual roles in a real-time change: Montreal (r >R) 1947–1995. In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 142–157.R)+1947–1995.+In+van+de+Velde,+&+van+Hout,+(eds.),+142–157.>Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30, 247–265.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, Barry & Steriade, Donca. 1986. On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 691–744.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend & Upton, Clive (eds.). 2004. A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M. & Pouplier, Marianne. 2010. The role of syllable structure in external sandhi: An EPG study of vocalisation and retraction in word-final English /l/. Journal of Phonetics 38, 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. The syllable. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part II, 337–84. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sivertsen, Eva. 1960. Cockney phonology. Oslo: University of Oslo Press.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Fujimura, Osamu. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3, 25–146.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, 219–250. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2003. The phonology of Modern Urban Scots. In Corbett, John, McClure, Derrick & Stuart-Smith, Jane (eds.), The Edinburgh companion to Scots, 110–137. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2007. A sociophonetic investigation of postvocalic /r/ in Glaswegian adolescents. The 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS16), Saarbrücken, 1449–1452.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2007. Phonological and phonetic characteristics of African American Vernacular English. Language and Linguistics Compass 1, 450–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torp, Arne. 2001. Retroflex consonants and dorsal /r/: Mutually excluding innovations? On the diffusion of dorsal /r/ in Scandinavian. In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 75–90.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. The dialects of England, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Velde, Hans van de & Hout, Roeland van (eds.). 2001. ‘r-atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/ (Etudes et Travaux 4). Brussels: ILVP/ULB.Google Scholar
Walsh Dickey, Laura. 1997. The phonology of liquids. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1990. Syllabification and allophony. In , Ramsaran (ed.), 76–86.Google Scholar
West, Paula. 1999. Perception of distributed coarticulatory properties of English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 27, 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, Douglas H. 1990. Coarticulation is largely planned. Journal of Phonetics 18, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Laurence & Turk, Alice E.. 2010. English words on the Procrustean bed: Polysyllabic shortening reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics 38, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2001. The unity and variation of (German) /r/. In van de Velde, & van Hout, (eds.), 11–26.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, Rose. 2008. Talkin’ country: African-American English of black women in the Mississippi Delta. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. [Published 2008, Indiana University.]Google Scholar
Williams, Ann & Kerswill, Paul. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerry (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles, 141–162. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1905. The English dialect grammar. Oxford: Henry Frowde.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1980. The tonal phonology of Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1990, New York: Garland.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawaydeh, Bushra A. & Jong, Kenneth J. de. 2011. The phonetics of localising uvularization in Arabic. In Hassan, Zeki Majeed & Heselwood, Barry (eds.), Instrumental studies in Arabic phonetics, 257–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Xinhui, Espy-Wilson, Carol, Tiede, Mark, Boyce, Suzanne, Holland, Christy & Choe, Ann. 2008. A magnetic resonance imaging-based articulatory and acoustic study of ‘retroflex’ and ‘bunched’ American English /r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123, 4466–4481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms., MIT. [ROA-282-0998]Google Scholar