The Prosodic Transfer Hypothesis in the grammar and its treatment of clitics

References

1. Chomsky, N.
   (1995) The minimalist program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Chomsky, N.
   (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
   https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
3. Cinque, G.
   (1996) The ‘antisymmetric’ programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics, 32(2), 447–464. 10.1017/S0022226700015966
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700015966 [Google Scholar]
4. Harris, J.
   (1994) English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Kayne, R. S.
   (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Kaye, J. D.
   (1995) Derivations and interfaces. InJ. Durand & F. Katamba (Eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations (pp.289–332). Harlow, Essex: Longman.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Kiparsky, P.
   (1982) From cyclic to Lexical Phonology. InH. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol.I (pp.131–175). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Kiparsky, P.
   (1985) Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 83–138. 10.1017/S0952675700000397
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000397 [Google Scholar]
9. Kural, M.
   (2005) Tree traversal and word order. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 367–387. 10.1162/0024389054396890
   https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396890 [Google Scholar]
10. Lowenstamm, J.
    (1996) CV as the only syllable type. InJ. Durand & B. Laks (Eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods (pp.419–442). Salford: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Onuma, H. & K. Nasukawa
    (2020) Velar softening without precedence relations. InK. Nasukawa (Ed.), Morpheme-internal recursion in phonology (pp.201–229). Boston and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Samuels, B.
    (2009) The third factor in phonology. Biolinguistics, 3(2–3), 355–382.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Samuels, B.
    (2011) Phonological architecture: A biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694358.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694358.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
14. Scheer, T.
    (2004) A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV and why should it be?Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908336
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908336 [Google Scholar]
15. Scheer, T.
    (2008) Why the prosodic hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct. InJ. Hartmann, V. Hegedüs & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology (pp.145–192). Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Selkirk, E. O.
    (1984) Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Selkirk, E. O.
    (1996) The prosodic structure of function words. InJ. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp.187–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Tokizaki, H.
    (2018) Externalization, stress and word order. Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society, 32, 18–34.
    [Google Scholar]