Assimilation 553 Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design.’ Language Learning 51(3).Jacoby S & Ochs E (1995). ‘Co-construction: an introduction.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3), 171–183. Kane M T (1992). ‘An argument-based approach to validity.’ Psychological Bulletin 12, 527–535. Kane M T (2001). ‘Current concerns in validity theory.’ Journal of Educational Measurement 38(4), 319–342. Kunnan A J (2000). ‘Fairness and justice for all.’ In Kunnan A J (ed.) Fairness and validation in language assessment. Selected papers of the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium. Orlando, FL. Cambridge, UK: UCLES & CUP. 1–10. Lumley T & Brown A (2005). ‘Research methods in language testing.’ In McNamara T, Brown A, Grove L, Hill K & Iwashita N (eds.) Handbook of research in second language learning: Part VI. Second language testing and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 833–857. McNamara T F (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McNamara T F (2001). ‘Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research.’ Language Testing 18(4), 333–349. McNamara T F, Hill K & May L (2002). ‘Discourse and assessment.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 221–242. Messick S (1989). ‘Validity.’ In Linn R L (ed.) Educational measurement, 3rd edn. New York: American Council on Education, Macmillan. 13–103. Mislevy R J, Steinberg L S & Almond R G (2002). ‘Design and analysis in task-based language assessment.’ Language Testing 19(4), 477–496. Mislevy R J, Steinberg L S & Almond R G (2003). ‘On the structure of assessment arguments.’ Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 1(1), 3–62. O’Loughlin K (2001). The equivalence of direct and semidirect speaking tests. Studies in Language Testing 13. Cambridge, UK: UCLES and Cambridge University Press. Popham W J (1997). ‘Consequential validity: right concern – wrong concept.’ Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2), 9–13. Rea-Dickins P (ed.) (2004). ‘Special issue: exploring diversity in teacher assessment.’ Language Testing 21(3). Shohamy E (2001). The power of tests: a critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Pearson. Spolsky B (1995). Measured words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Assimilation E Zsiga, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Definition Assimilation is a phonological process in which two sounds that are different become more alike. (The opposite of assimilation is dissimilation, in which sounds that are alike become different.) Assimilation may be either local, in which the two sounds must be immediately adjacent, or long distance, where one sound affects another even though other segments intervene. Local assimilation is the most common type of phonological process, and it can occur along just about any phonetic dimension, including place, voicing, nasality, continuancy, rounding, and palatalization. Assimilations may be partial or total. In partial assimilation, one segment comes to match another in one or more, but not all, phonological features. In total assimilation, two segments become identical. Both partial and total assimilation can be illustrated with the English negative prefix in-. The basic form of the prefix is [in-], as in ‘inaccurate’ and ‘insecure.’ In ‘impossible,’ the [n] undergoes partial assimilation, changing to match the place of articulation of the following stop, but maintaining its underlying nasality. In ‘illiterate,’ the assimilation is total, with the [n] becoming identical to the adjacent [1]. Assimilations may also be distinguished by the direction in which the change occurs. In a sequence AB, if A changes to become more like B, as in [np] becomes [mp], the assimilation is termed ‘regressive’ (as though B were reaching back to change A) or ‘anticipatory’ (A anticipates a feature of B). If B changes to become more like A, the assimilation is termed ‘progressive’ (A reaches forward to affect B) or ‘perseverative’ (some feature of A perseveres into B). An example of progressive assimilation is found in the English past tense and plural suffixes, which are basically voiced (as in ‘rowed’ [ro-d] and ‘toes’ [to-z]), but become voiceless when preceded by a voiceless segment (as in ‘cats’ [kæt-s] and ‘talked’ [tak-t]). Assimilation is sensitive to syllabic position and to prominence. For example, segments in the syllable coda assimilate to segments in the onset far more often than reverse (Ito ˆ , 1988; Beckman, 1998). Position in the word also plays a role: medial vowels assimilate to initial vowels, and affixes assimilate to roots. Steriade (2001) defines prominence in terms of perceptual salience, arguing that segments assimilate Partial One of the most common assimilations crosslinguistically is nasal consonants assimilating in place of articulation to a following stop. [owo] ‘money’ plus [epo] ‘oil’ becomes [oweepo] ‘oil money. 1992. Walker.’ [me-n-nu] ‘I do not pour.’ [ot fsple ´ ska] ‘from a splash’ (Jakobson. Local Assimilation.’ Vowels and consonants sometimes influence one another.’ [Zenj-i-tj] ‘marry. In French. and harmony systems involving backness.’ [m-bur-eete] ‘1SG-lop off-IMPERF’ (Clements. In Ancient Greek. a string of obstruents always agrees in voicing with the final obstruent in the sequence: [od vzbu ´ tski] ‘from a scolding. Vowel harmony is a type of assimilation in which all vowels in a certain domain (usually the word) must agree in one or more features. Assimilation of nasality from consonant to consonant is found in Twi. usually regressively.’ Another example of complete assimilation involving [l] is found in Arabic: the [l] of the definite prefix [ al] assimilates completely to a following coronal consonant: [ al-kitaab] ‘the book’ but [ as-sams] ‘the sun. adding an additional high front tongue position without changing the consonant’s primary place: Russian [Zen-a] ‘wife.’ but [gEgrap-tai] ‘has been written’ and [grab-den] ‘writing/scraping’. rounding.’ but [tetrip-tai] ‘has been rubbed’ and [etriph-the:n] ‘it was rubbed. [trib-o] ‘I rub. for example. press/pressure ([s]/[s]).’ [ ad-daar] ‘the house. 1999 for further examples and discussion).’ [me-0-0a] ‘I do not receive. ‘impossible’ and ‘compact’ vs. 1985).’ [n-dEm-EEtE] ‘1SG-cut-IMPERF’ (Clements. Postnasal voicing is attested in a number of languages. Complete The feature [nasal] itself may assimilate (Cohn. 1990. retracted tongue root have been described: see van der Hulst and van de Weijer (1995) for an overview. Examples Local Assimilation. Vowel harmony has been extensively discussed in the phonological literature.’ [me-n-tO] ‘I do not buy. [nwoke] ‘man’ plus [a] ‘DET’ becomes [nwokaa] ‘that man. 1920): [graph-o] ‘I write. the negative prefix is also a nasal: [me-m-pE] ‘I do not like. 1978). vowel height.’ [me-N-ka] ‘I do not say. 1973).’ The change of a stop to a fricative between vowels.554 Assimilation in contexts where contrastive features can not be clearly heard: postvocalic consonants generally assimilate to prevocalic consonants. Vowels often become nasal adjacent to a nasal consonant. English has alternations such as grade/gradual ([d]/[dZ]). though there are cases of sonorant–obstruent voicing assimilations. In Sundanese (Sunda).’ is sometimes considered assimilation of the feature [þcontinuant]. Kiparsky (1985) reported nasal assimilation to seven different places of articulation: (1) so[n] amics so[m] pocs so[M] felicos so[n 9 ] [d 9 ]os so[0] rics so[J] [y]iures so[N] grans they are friends they are few they are happy they are two they are rich they are free they are big consonants: [kokusai] ‘international. Generally. coronal consonants become alveopalatals before high front vowels or glides. habit/ habitual ([t]/[ts]). Examples include English ‘inaccurate’ vs. for example Kikuyu (Gikuyu) [tEm-a] ‘cut-IMP. [bon] ‘good’ becomes [bo ˜ ].’ In Twi. where high vowels become voiceless if surrounded by voiceless Several African languages have rules of complete vowel assimilation at word boundaries (Welmers.’ In Igbo. 1998).’ [la bola] ‘the ball. ‘contact’ vs. In Yoruba. for example. 1985. assimilating the higher tongue position. ‘co[N]gress. because release into a vowel provides the most salient cues to the phonological features of a consonant. Piggott.’ [kitai] ‘expecta˚ ˚ tion’ (Tsuchida. 1996). 1957).’ Total assimilation of consonants is found in English [in-] assimilation to [l] and [r] (mentioned above) as in ‘illegal’ and ‘irreconcilable. In Russian. [natur] ‘arrange’ is pronounced [na ˜ tur] (Robins. and advanced vs. In many languages. when a root-initial voiced stop follows the negative prefix: [me-gu/] ‘I pour. sonorants do not participate in voicing assimilation (note that the [l] in [fsple ´ ska] neither becomes voiceless nor causes the preceding consonants to become voiced). Assimilation of [-continuant] may be seen in postnasal hardening: Kikuyu [bur-a] ‘lop off-IMP. Long-Distance Assimilation Long-distance assimilation is known as harmony. 1999 and Pater.’ Another common assimilation is voicing assimilation. A vowel may also impose palatalization as a secondary articulation on a consonant. 1994). Clusters of obstruents often assimilate in voicing. obstruent clusters assimilated in both voicing and aspiration (Smyth.’ For Catalan (CatalanValencian-Balear). In . as in Spanish [bola] ‘ball. see also Hayes.’ [ an-nahr] ‘the river’ (Kenstowicz. Voicing assimilation from consonant to vowel is found in Japanese. 1976.’ The Catalan nasal assimilation rule in (1) above would be: (4) [þnasal] ! [a coronal]/ [b anterior] [g labial] [d back] [E high] [f distributed] [a coronal] [b anterior] [g labial] [d back] [E high] [f distributed] Feature-changing rules. in that the . see also Vago. except as a byproduct of nasal assimilation or complete assimilation. 1990. Feature-Changing Rules In many West African languages. Feature-changing rules are not powerful enough.’ Greek letters stand for variables over ‘þ’ and ‘À. In Igbo. 1992). 1997). 1957.’ [yrnek] ‘to the gap’ (Ringen. In Turkish. avoice] would be read ‘an obstruent agrees in voicing with a following obstruent. 1982): all coronal fricatives and affricates in a word must agree with the rightmost fricative or affricate in the value of [þ/anterior]: [k-sunon-us] ‘I obey him. a consonant’s voicing value must match its feature for back. suffix vowels assimilate in backness to the root vowel: [ha:z-nak] ‘to the house.Assimilation 555 Hungarian. 1988.’ Consonant harmony such as that seen in Kikongo is less common than vowel harmony. but constrained enough to rule out impossible patterns. In Shona. for example.’ Rose and Walker (2004) discuss nasal harmony from consonant to consonant in Kikongo (Kango): [m-bud-idi] ‘I hit. ip-ler-in ki $z-lar-i $n jyz-ler-in pul-lar-i $n ‘rope’ ‘girl’ ‘face’ ‘stamp’ consonants. all vowels in a word must agree in the feature [advanced (or retracted) tongue root] (Welmers. 1973.’ [ku ` re ` Ng-e ` s-e ` r-a ` ] ‘to make read ´ -e to’) and a string of suffixes following a high-toned root will be high toned ([te ´ Ng] ‘buy. tone may assimilate from vowel to vowel. Assimilation and Phonological Theory If linguistic theory is concerned with the question of ‘What is a possible human language?’ then phonological theory must be concerned with the question of ‘What is a possible process of assimilation?’ The best theory would be powerful enough to encode all actually occurring assimilatory patterns. while nonhigh vowels agree in backness. does not become [lr]. Kenstowicz. An unstressed syllable adjacent to a stressed syllable does not become stressed – rather the opposite: two adjacent stressed syllables or two adjacent unstressed syllables are avoided. and subsidiary place features such as [retroflex] or [anterior] (Hansson. Some oftcited examples from Turkish (Clements and Sezer. The long-distance behavior of tone was instrumental in the development of the theory of ‘autosegmental’ ‘phonology’ (Goldsmith. Anderson. Zsiga. ip-in ki $z-i $n jyz-yn pul-un genitive pl. 1982) include: (2) genitive sg. Some Assimilations That Do Not Occur In the formal theory of Chomsky and Halle (1968).’ [tu-kun-ini] ‘we planted. or syllable to syllable. processes of assimilation were expressed as feature changing rules of the form A ! B/ C D (‘A’ changes to ‘B’ in the context of CAD). [O-SIala] ‘s/he has told’ contains only vowels from the retracted set. for example. 1994). 1985). however.’ [ku ´ Ng-e ´ s-e ´ r-a ´] ´ -te ‘to sell to’) (Myers. however. Goldsmith.’ and every instance of the variable in a rule must be filled in with the same value. discussed below).’ [k-sunon-s] ‘I am obedient.’ [vi:z-nek] ‘to the water. Several Austronesian languages exhibit long-distance nasal harmony. 2001. Attested cases involve long-distance assimilation of nasality. 1976. and not powerful enough (Bach. a string of suffixes following a low toned root will be low toned ([e ` re ` Ng] ‘read. 1968. Nasal assimilation in Sundanese (Robins. Rose and Walker. 1990) may extend over a sequence of vowels and glides: [Ja ˜ı ˜a ˜ n] ‘wet. Archangeli and Pulleyblank. laryngeal features. 1989. They are too powerful in that nothing rules out impossible rules like that in (5): (5) [-sonorant] ! [avoice] / [-sonorant. aback] The feature [þ/-consonantal] does not assimilate. Nor does the feature [sonorant] assimilate.’ Finally. high vowels agree with a preceding vowel in both backness and rounding.’ [va:ros-nak] ‘to the city. One well-known example is anterior assimilation in Chumash (Poser. The sequence [dr]. and vice versa (though a possible counterexample is proposed by Kaisse. yet this impossible rule is identical in formal complexity to the common rule of obstruent voicing assimilation. for example. 1985). Vowels adjacent to consonants do not become In this rule. Thus (3) [-sonorant] ! [avoice]/ [-sonorant. Stress does not assimilate. 2004). are both too powerful. [o-si-ele] ‘s/he has cooked’ has vowels only from the advanced set. Cohn. The crucial concept of feature ‘matching’ in assimilation was expressed via ‘alpha notation. McCarthy (2004) provides a critical review of ALIGN and SPREAD constraints.g. and Padgett (1995) provided an alternative. Phonological assimilation is complete and categorical. Such constraints may be grounded in either ease of articulation (e. switching voicing in the middle of an obstruent cluster is hard) or ease of perception (e. (6) The voicing feature begins as a property of the second consonant in the cluster (indicated by the solid line).’ A feature is linked to a segment via an association line. and proposes an alternative analysis.’ and do not themselves spread. while more complicated feature switches have a correspondingly more complicated representation. Obstruent voicing assimilation would be formalized as in (6). gave an overview of one widely accepted geometry. The features [sonorant] and [consonantal] form the ‘core’ of the segment. Constraints In the theory of ‘autosegmental phonology.’ because the former is overlapped in time (coarticulated) with a front vowel and the latter is coarticulated with a back vowel. on a universal geometry that can capture all the relevant groupings needed. (7) In a nonderivational constraint-based theory such as ‘optimality theory’ (Prince and Smolensky. and thus the segment’s phonological category. Longdistance assimilation is easily handled as spreading over longer domains.g. Lombardi (1999) discusses voicing assimilation. cues to place of articulation in preconsonantal nasals are hard to hear. the formal simplicity mirroring the rule’s ubiquity. and features may spread (assimilate) via the addition of further associations. Feature-Spreading Rules nonrepresentational account of feature classes in assimilation. phonetic coarticulation may be gradient and variable (Keating. Assimilation vs. and Padgett (1995) provides an account of nasal place assimilation. where [back] and [round] (but not other vowel features) spread together. McCarthy (1988). but comes to be shared between the two (indicated by the addition of the dotted line). In co-articulation. Rather. are argued to prefer sequences where features agree.’ Daniel Jones. For example. there is no reference to rules or processes of assimilation. Two articulatory gestures overlap in time. Another challenge is accounting for the fact that consonants are sometimes transparent to vowel assimilations (as in vowel harmony). and are not seen in languages that give higher priority to maintaining underlying specifications. or where features spread over a certain domain. Consensus has not been reached. because the velum begins to open before closure for the consonant is achieved (Cohn.’ in which two sounds become more alike but do not change their phonemic identity. but only in phonetic realization. the ‘root node. then place assimilation can be formalized as the addition of a single association line. the [k] in ‘key’ is pronounced further forward than the [k] in ‘coo.. Harmony systems such as Turkish. 1990). however.556 Assimilation common and straightforward process of nasal place assimilation is represented via a complicated formula. and Bakovic (2000) provide constraint-based accounts of vowel harmony. Thus assimilation is given a privileged status as an elementary operation. Hume (1992) and Clements (1993) suggested a different set of class nodes. In the foregoing discussion. there is no change in phonological category.’ which define preferred and dispreferred linguistic structures. ‘markedness constraints. Different hierarchical groupings of autosegmental features (‘feature geometries’) have been proposed to account for the fact that certain groups of features (such as the place features in Catalan or the laryngeal features in Greek) assimilate together (Clements.) Specific assimilations are seen in languages that give specific markedness constraints high priority. Beckman (1998).’ which he defined as a change in phonemic status. 1990). it has been assumed that phonological assimilation results in a change in a segment’s phonological features (from [þvoice] to [voice]. and thus may exert a physical influence on one another. have proven problematic. If all of the place features are grouped under a single node.’ assimilation is formalized as ‘feature spreading. 2004). In English.. and sometimes participate in vowel assimilations (as in palatalization). for example). distinguished ‘assimilation. Co-articulation Phonological assimilation can be distinguished from phonetic ‘co-articulation. 1985). in his ‘Outline of English phonetics’ (1940). vowels are nasalized before a nasal consonant. . Kaun (1995). and ‘similitude. ‘Articulatory phonology: an overview.’ Phonology Yearbook 2. ‘Positional faithfulness.’ Doctoral dissertation. The sound pattern of English. 173–217. Conclusion Assimilation is the most common of all phonological processes. while assimilation (except in some very common phrases like [nwoka-a] from [nwoke-a]) is gradient and the result of gestural overlap. Cohn A (1990). Phonology: Optimality Theory. University of California. and continues to examine the proper formalization of local and long-distance assimilations. 341–376. showing that harmony is categorical and featural. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harmony. and control. Beckman J (1998). ‘Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. Gafos (1999) proposed that harmonizing features should be understood as a single underlying gesture that persists throughout a word. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phonology in the twentieth century. all assimilation is local assimilation.). but are overlaid on contiguous vowel gestures. what groups of features assimilate together. ‘Harmony. Archangeli D & Pulleyblank D (1989). Hungarian: Phonology. for example. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. 225–252. Gafos A (1999). See also: Dissimilation. Assimilation of alveolar [n] to dental [y]. Current work on assimilation is teasing apart the contributions of articulatory coarticulation and phonological feature switch.’ Phonetics 49. ‘Lieu d’articulation des consonnes et de des voyelles: une the ´ orie unifie ´ e. Browman C & Goldstein L (1992).’ Doctoral dissertation. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization.) L’Architecture et la geometrie des repre ´ sentations phonologiques. Rutgers University. ‘Yoruba vowel harmony. ‘The geometry of phonological features. and all assimilation be constrained to be strictly local. Chomsky N & Halle M (1968). Cohn (1990) described both gradient and categorical processes of nasal assimilation.’ Doctoral dissertation. Studies such as Cohn (1990) and Zsiga (1995. Browman C & Goldstein L (1990). but that the phonological and phonetic modules should remain separate. Bach E (1968). Bakovic E (2000). From this point of view. Clements G N & Sezer E (1982). Doctoral dissertation. to empirically distinguish the two. ‘Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Bibliography Anderson S (1985).’ In Laks B & Rialland A (eds. Browman and Goldstein (1990. ‘Transparent’ segments (vowels and consonants that intervene in a harmony domain but that apparently do not share the harmonizing feature) are obviously a problem for this approach.’ In Kingston J & Beckman M (eds. Is All Assimilation Local Assimilation? Articulatory phonology has been extended to account for vowel harmony and other long-distance assimilations. however. as two different overlapping gestures blend to an intermediate place of articulation. showed that categorical and gradient processes of assimilation must be distinguished. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is argued that phonological features may be mapped into articulatory gestures. as shown by phonetic imaging techniques.Assimilation 557 It may sometimes be difficult. Nı ´Chiosa ´ in and Padgett (2001) and Rose and Walker (2004) suggested various means by which such .’ Zsiga (1997) examined Igbo [ATR] vowel harmony and vowel assimilation. dominance. Consonants do not break up sequences of harmonizing vowels. New York: Harper & Row. Amherst.) Between the grammar and physics of speech.’ In van der Hulst & Smith (eds. and thus has played an important role in phonological theory. They argue that in phrases like ‘hundre[b] pounds’ and ‘i[m] pairs’ the word-final coronal is still articulatorily present. Goldsmith J (1976). 128–149. as in the pronunciation of ‘ten things’ in English.’ Glossa 2. ‘Autosegmental phonology.’ showed that overlap and blending of articulatory gestures can result in apparently complete assimilation without any change of phonological features. can also be accounted for in terms of articulatory overlap. Assimilation is perceived because a coronal and a labial pronounced at the same time sound like an assimilated labial. Articulatory phonology argues that all assimilations can be accounted for in terms of gestural overlap. ‘Tiers in articulatory phonology. Paris: CNRS. Los Angeles. in the theory of ‘articulatory phonology. with some implications for casual speech. Clements G N (1993). Clements G N (1985). apparent ‘action-at-a-distance’ can be reanalyzed. or in the Catalan case discussed above. 1992). Zsiga (1995) showed that the categorical assimilation of [s] to [s] in ‘pressure’ is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the partial and gradient change in the phrase ‘press your point. however.’ Linguistic Inquiry 20. New York: Garland. 1997). 213–255. 155–180. and why certain segments participate in assimilations while others do not. University of Massachusetts. Phonological theories have sought to capture what sorts of assimilation can and cannot occur. ) Functionalism and formalism in phonology 1: General papers. New York: Garland. 243–285. ‘Phonetic and phonological vowel devoicing in Japanese. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Myers S (1990). Hansson G (2001). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pater J (1999). ‘Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.’ In Studies in Linguistic Analysis.. ‘Transparency in Hungarian vowel harmony. Rose S & Walker R (2004). Oxford: Blackwell. New York: Dutton. ‘Variability in feature dependency: the case of nasality. Prince A & Smolensky P (2004). ‘The typology of rounding harmony: an optimality theoretic approach. Berkeley.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cornell University. Doctoral dissertation. 107–110. coronal consonants. McCarthy J (2004).’ In Kager R. Phonology in generative grammar. Front vowels. University of California. Tsuchida A (1996). ‘An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and post-lexical palatalization in American English. 219–250. ‘Vowel harmony in Khalka Mongolian. Tucson: University of Arizona. African language structures.) (1982). ‘Phonological representations and action at a distance. 87–103. . Piggott G (1992).) Phonology and phonetic evidence. ‘Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. gestures. Nı ´Chiosa ´ in M & Padgett J (2001). 313–332. Noonan M. Keating P (1990). Newmeyer R & Wheatley K (eds. Welmers W (1973). ‘Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Robins R H (1957). University of California. Santa Cruz.) The role of speech perception in phonology. Amherst.) The prosody–morphology interface.’ Phonology 5.’ Journal of Phonetics 18.) Segmental phonology in optimality theory.’ In Goldsmith J (ed.’ In Lombardi L (ed. University of Massachusetts. Cambridge. 327–342. 227–274. Walker R (1998). Yaka. Vago R (1976). Kenstowicz M (1994).). Kaun A (1995). Jones D (1940). Jakobson R (1978). 33–78. ‘Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Ringen C (1988). McCarthy J (1988). ‘A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Smyth H W (1920).558 Assimilation Goldsmith J (1985). Greek grammar. and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. ‘Some consequences of lexical phonology. Tone and the structure of words in Shona. New York: Academic Press.’ In van der Hulst & Smith (eds. Doctoral dissertation. van der Hulst H & Zonneveld W (eds. MS. segment realization. 321–334. Oxford: Blackwell.’ Doctoral dissertation. ‘Phonetic representation in a generative grammar.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. Oxford: Blackwell. ‘Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Hayes B (1999). ‘Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account.’ Phonology 2.’ Phonetica 43.’ In Proceedings of the 1995 Southwestern Workshop on Optimality Theory. ‘Features. Lombardi L (1999). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The structure of phonological representations. and locality in spreading. 282–302. ‘Markedness. 83–138. Los Angeles. ‘Vowel harmony. Moravscik E. Dordrecht: Foris. 243–263.’ Doctoral dissertation. 310–343. 84–108.’ Studia Linguistica 32. and Hungarian.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. ‘Nasalization. New York: Garland. An outline of English phonetics.’ Language 73(2). Ito J (1998). Headed spans and autosegmental spreading. MA: Harvard University Press. neutral segments. 121–158. and opacity effects. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony.’ Phonology Yearbook 2. 475–531. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hume E (1992). Kiparsky P (1985). University of California. ‘Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation.’ In Darnell M.’ Language 80(3). 267–302. ‘Phonetically-driven phonology: the role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. van der Hulst H & Smith N (eds.’ In Connell B & Arvaniti A (eds. Padgett J (1995). van der Hulst H & van de Weijer J (1995).’ Doctoral dissertation. Zsiga E (1997). 253–275. Zsiga E (1995).’ In Hume B & Johnson K (eds. ‘Vowel nasality in Sundanese: a phonological and grammatical study. Kaisse E (1992). Steriade D (2001).’ Linguistic Inquiry 7. Cornell University. 495–534. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finnish. Poser W (1982). Oxford: Blackwell. ‘Can [consonantal] spread?’ Language 68. and Igbo vowels: An approach to the phonology–phonetics interface.