@article{Green2006,
  author    = {Green, Antony Dubach},
  title     = {The independence of phonology and morphology: The Celtic mutations},
  series = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics},
  volume    = {116},
  journal   = {Lingua : international review of general linguistics},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0024-3841},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lingua.2004.09.002},
  pages     = {1946 -- 1985},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {One of the most important insights of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993) is that phonological processes can be reduced to the interaction between faithfulness and universal markedness principles. In the most constrained version of the theory, all phonological processes should be thus reducible. This hypothesis is tested by alternations that appear to be phonological but in which universal markedness principles appear to play no role. If we are to pursue the claim that all phonological processes depend on the interaction of faithfulness and markedness, then processes that are not dependent on markedness must lie outside phonology. In this paper I will examine a group of such processes, the initial consonant mutations of the Celtic languages, and argue that they belong entirely to the morphology of the languages, not the phonology.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Komen2009,
  author    = {Komen, Erwin R.},
  title     = {Branching constraints},
  series = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  journal   = {Linguistics in Potsdam},
  number    = {28},
  issn      = {1616-7392},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-32273},
  pages     = {157 -- 186},
  year      = {2009},
  abstract  = {Rejecting approaches with a directionality parameter, mainstream minimalism has adopted the notion of strict (or unidirectional) branching. Within optimality theory however, constraints have recently been proposed that presuppose that the branching direction scheme is language specific. I show that a syntactic analysis of Chechen word order and relative clauses using strict branching and movement triggered by feature checking seems very unlikely, whereas a directionality approach works well. I argue in favor of a mixed directionality approach for Chechen, where the branching direction scheme depends on the phrase type. This observation leads to the introduction of context variants of existing markedness constraints, in order to describe the branching processes in terms of optimality theory. The paper discusses how and where the optimality theory selection of the branching directions can be implemented within a minimalist derivation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Engels2004,
  author    = {Engels, Eva},
  title     = {Adverb placement : an optimality theoretic approach},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-2453},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {Adverb positioning is guided by syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic considerations and is subject to cross-linguistic as well as language-specific variation. The goal of the thesis is to identify the factors that determine adverb placement in general (Part I) as well as in constructions in which the adverb's sister constituent is deprived of its phonetic material by movement or ellipsis (gap constructions, Part II) and to provide an Optimality Theoretic approach to the contrasts in the effects of these factors on the distribution of adverbs in English, French, and German. In Optimality Theory (Prince \& Smolensky 1993), grammaticality is defined as optimal satisfaction of a hierarchy of violable constraints: for a given input, a set of output candidates are produced out of which that candidate is selected as grammatical output which optimally satisfies the constraint hierarchy. Since grammaticality crucially relies on the hierarchic relations of the constraints, cross-linguistic variation can be traced back to differences in the language-specific constraint rankings. Part I shows how diverse phenomena of adverb placement can be captured by corresponding constraints and their relative rankings: - contrasts in the linearization of adverbs and verbs/auxiliaries in English and French - verb placement in German and the filling of the prefield position - placement of focus-sensitive adverbs - fronting of topical arguments and adverbs Part II extends the analysis to a particular phenomenon of adverb positioning: the avoidance of adverb attachment to a phonetically empty constituent (gap). English and French are similar in that the acceptability of pre-gap adverb placement depends on the type of adverb, its scope, and the syntactic construction (English: wh-movement vs. topicalization / VP Fronting / VP Ellipsis, inverted vs. non-inverted clauses; French: CLLD vs. Cleft, simple vs. periphrastic tense). Yet, the two languages differ in which strategies a specific type of adverb may pursue to escape placement in front of a certain type of gap. In contrast to English and French, placement of an adverb in front of a gap never gives rise to ungrammaticality in German. Rather, word ordering has to obey the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic principles discussed in Part I; whether or not it results in adverb attachment to a phonetically empty constituent seems to be irrelevant: though constraints are active in every language, the emergence of a visible effect of their requirements in a given language depends on their relative ranking. The complex interaction of the diverse factors as well as their divergent effects on adverb placement in the various languages are accounted for by the universal constraints and their language-specific hierarchic relations in the OT framework.},
  subject      = {Adverb},
  language  = {en}
}