RANGE: Journal of
Undergraduate
Research (2024)
Volume 25, Issue 1
Office of Undergraduate Research
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
RANGE: Journal of Undergraduate Research (2024) Copyright ©
2024 by University of Utah is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise
noted.
University of Utah
An Analysis of Vowel Reduction in
Bolognese
Brandon Osgan
This study presents an analysis of vowel reduction in Bolognese. The vowels of
Bolognese’s vowel inventory reduce to be [+high] and [+ATR], becoming either [i]
for front vowels or [u] for back ones. The context in which this occurs is known as a
derived environment, in which a vowel that can be stressed in another form of the
respective word but is no longer stressed in the current form of the word is targeted
for vowel reduction. In contrast, vowels that are never stressed in any form of the
respective word are not targets for vowel reduction. The ranking of the necessary
constraints to derive the correct surface form of the word explains how this observed
reduction to the corresponding high-tense counterpart occurs. There is another
observed vowel reduction pattern in Bolognese which only targets the vowels [ɛː],
[aː], and [a] in which we see these vowels reduce either to [a] or simply to nothing.
To account for this second reduction pattern, we adopt two separate phonologies each
with their own ranking of the constraints. In comparing Bolognese words that
demonstrate the second pattern to their Italian cognates there appears to be a
correlation, where the vowels in Bolognese reduce, and in Italian an adjacent
consonant to the target vowel will be lengthened. This suggests that there may be
historical evidence in Bolognese for favoring the second reduction pattern over the
first, though for modern speakers this choice seems to be arbitrary.
1 Introduction
This study seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of vowel reduction in
Bolognese, situated within the broader context of Romance linguistics. Bolognese is a Gallo-Italic
language, part of the larger Romance language family, primarily spoken in Bologna, a city in
Italy's Emilia-Romagna region. Bolognese is one of the many endangered Emilian languages, with
only between 10k to 1M native language (L1) users left of all Emilian languages spoken (Eberhard,
Simons, & Fennig, 2024). Linguistic work is increasingly being conducted in this language,
notably with Canepari & Vitali (1995), and Vitali (2008) who investigate the acoustics and
phonetics of Bolognese vowels and consonants. Much of these works are contained in an online
database (Compagnia del Bolognese, 1999). This study documents how vowel reduction occurs in
Bolognese, wherein vowels (1) reduce to be [+high] and [+ATR], becoming either [i] for front
2
vowels or [u] for back ones. There is a second observed reduction pattern where we see the
reduction of specifically the vowels [ɛː], [aː], and [a] reduces either to [a] or simply to nothing. To
account for this second reduction pattern, we adopt two separate phonologies. Each of Bolognese’s
reduction patterns is attested by Crosswhite (2001), providing further evidence supporting her
predictions regarding contrast-enhancing and prominence-aligning vowel reduction patterns.
(1)
2 Prominence Reduction
This study looks at the phenomenon of vowel reduction through the framework of Optimality
Theory. In Bolognese, non-peripheral vowels are deemed undesirable in unstressed positions and
are subsequently targeted for vowel reduction. (2) illustrates the movement of these non-peripheral
vowels during vowel reduction.
(2)
In the unstressed position, we find that back vowels reduce to the [+high, +round, +ATR] vowel
[u], as in (3). We can see this in (3a) with the word ‘blond.’ In this word, we have an underlying
[+low, +back] [ɑ]. When the diminutive suffix [eŋ] is added to the word, stress shifts off the [ɑ].
Because the vowel is no longer stressed it becomes a target for vowel reduction. In the same
context, we find that front vowels reduce to the [+high, -round, +ATR] vowel [i], as in (4). We can
see this in (4a) with the word ‘foot.’ In this word, we have an underlying [+low, -back] [a]. As we
saw before, when the diminutive suffix [eŋ] is added to the word, stress shifts off the [a]. Because
the vowel is no longer stressed it becomes a target for vowel reduction.
3
(3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
[ˈbjɑŋd]
[ˈmɑnt]
[ˈstrɔːlg]
[ˈrɔːba]
[ˈʧoːd]
[aˈproːv]
[ˈluːg]
[ˈkuːl]
‘blond’
‘mountain’
‘astrologer’
‘stuff’
‘nail’
‘I try’
‘place’
‘ass’
[bjuŋˈdeŋ]
[muntaˈɲoːla]
[strulˈgeŋ]
[ruˈbata]
[ʧudˈleŋ]
[pruˈvɛːr]
[luˈgat]
[kulaˈzeŋ]
‘blond.DIM’
‘mountain.DIM’
‘astrologer.DIM’
‘stuff.DIM’
‘nail.DIM’
‘to try’
‘place.DIM’
‘ass.DIM’
[ˈpa]
[ˈvaɪder]
[ˈdæŋt]
[ˈvæŋt]
[ˈlɛːt]
[maˈlɛːp]
[ˈfreðer]
[ˈpez]
[kaˈmiːza]
[biˈkiːr]
‘foot’
‘glass’
‘tooth’
‘wind’
‘bed'
‘disorder’
‘to fry’
‘goatee’
‘shirt’
‘goblet’
[piˈdeŋ]
[vidˈrɛːŋ]
[diŋˈteŋ]
[viŋtaˈreŋ]
[litˈeŋ]
[maliˈpeŋ]
[afriˈðeːva]
[piˈzat]
[kamiˈzeŋna]
[bikiˈreŋ]
‘foot.DIM’
‘glass.DIM’
‘tooth.DIM’
‘wind.DIM’
‘bed.DIM’
‘disorder.DIM’
‘I was frying’
‘goatee.DIM’
‘shirt.DIM’
‘goblet.DIM’
(4)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Regardless of whether reduction occurs, vowels in an unstressed position in Bolognese will always
be short (i.e. an unstressed syllable may only contain one mora (μ) in the nucleus) per the weightto-stress principle. In (4e), we see that though the target vowel [iː] is already peripheral and thus
may not appear to change in quality during vowel reduction, it does change in duration (reducing
from 2 moras to only 1 mora contained in the nucleus) due to its new unstressed position.
Likewise, in (4a), the target vowel contains a diphthong and must be shortened during reduction.
This type of vowel reduction pattern found in Bolognese has been predicted (Crosswhite, 2001)
and exemplifies the phenomenon of prominence reduction. Two types of vowel reduction are
introduced by Crosswhite (2001): contrast enhancement and prominence reduction. Contrast
enhancement seeks to eliminate all non-peripheral vowels in unstressed positions, while
prominence reduction seeks to avoid particularly salient vowels in unstressed positions
(Crosswhite, 2001).
3 A Second Pattern
In Bolognese, while the vowel reduction pattern discussed above is the primary pattern used in the
language, it is not the only one. There is a second vowel reduction pattern in which only the vowels
[ɛː], [aː], and [a] display different means for reduction. In contrast, all other vowels maintain the
4
same pattern as stated above. In this second pattern, the vowels [ɛː] and [a] delete when in an
unstressed position, rather than reducing to [i] or [u] when in this position.
(5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Bol.DIM
[bud∅ˈleŋna]
[an∅ˈleŋ]
[kast∅ˈlat]
[skapla∅ˈdeŋna]
[buka∅ˈleŋ]
[gabˈjoːla]
[bukaˈleŋ]
[naˈvata]
[lokaˈleŋ]
Bol.
[buˈdɛːla]
[aˈnɛːl]
[kasˈtɛːl]
[kaˈplɛː]
[buˈkɛːl]
[ˈgɛːbja]
[buˈkɛːl]
[ˈnɛːv]
[loˈkɛːl]
Ital.
[buˈdɛlːo]
[aˈnɛlːo]
[kasˈtɛlːo]
[kapːeˈlːata]
[boˈkːale]
[gabːja]
[boˈkːale]
[neːve]
[loˈkaːle]
Gloss
‘bowel’
‘ring’
‘castle’
‘cappellata’
‘jug’
‘cage’
‘jug’
‘snow’
‘local’
(6) illustrates the movement of these vowels during vowel reduction. We can see this second
pattern of vowel reduction in (5a) with the word ‘bowel.’ In this word, we have an underlying [ɛː].
When the diminutive suffix [eŋna] is added to the word, stress shifts off the [ɛː]. Because the vowel
is no longer stressed it becomes a target for vowel reduction, resulting in its deletion. However, if
an ill-formed complex onset or coda were to result from this deletion, the vowel instead reduces to
the short vowel [a] as seen in (5f) and (5g), though this reduction to [a] does not appear to be
exclusive to the context of preventing an ill-formed complex onset or coda. Both the pattern in (2)
and here in (6) exemplify the second type of vowel reduction, prominence reduction. In the first
pattern, vowels reduce to [i] or [u] to avoid more salient vowels in unstressed positions, while
vowels delete in the second reduction pattern to avoid these particularly salient vowels in
unstressed positions.
(6)
To account for both vowel reduction patterns in our analysis, we implement cophonologies. It does
not seem possible to predict which reduction pattern any instances of these two vowels will exhibit,
though Italian cognate contextual evidence points to a historical change from Latin may be the
determining factor (Vitali, 2008). For vowels in which the deletion reduction pattern is used, we
find that in Italian cognates the vowel in question systematically appears next to long consonants,
particularly often long [l]. With both Italian and Bolognese belonging to the Romance language
5
family, this suggests that historical factors may be able to explain the criterion that determines
which reduction pattern will apply. Vitali (2008) may be able to shed some light on what a shared
historical form might be, though as of the writing of this analysis, it remains unclear.
4 Derived Environment Effect
To analyze vowel reduction, we must first identify the context in which vowels may reduce.
Bolognese exhibits what is known as a derived environment effect, where vowel reduction occurs
in an unstressed syllable, but only when this context has been created by something responsible for
shifting stress off the vowel that reduces, such as affixation or verb conjugation. As an example of
this effect, take the word [maˈlɛːp] ‘disorder’ and its diminutive form [maliˈpeŋ]. The [a] vowel in
this word never reduces due to it always being unstressed, while the [ɛː] sound does reduce only
after the affixation of the diminutive ending [eŋ] shifts stress off the vowel, creating our derived
environment effect.
5 OT Constraints
To derive the surface forms of Bolognese words that have undergone vowel reduction, we must
give careful attention to the rankings of 10 constraints. Due to the co-phonological grammar of
Bolognese, we are unable to account for both vowel reduction patterns under one hierarchy of
constraints. In consequence, each grammar has its own corresponding hierarchy. We will first
analyze the contrast-enhancing vowel reduction pattern (28) followed by the prominence-reducing
pattern (29).
5.1 *Unstressed
The first set of constraints we need all do similar things, though target different vowels. In this
analysis, we adopt the following constraints from Crosswhite (2001): *UNSTRESSED/[+low], and
three constraints of the form *UNSTRESSED/[X], [Y], where X = a front vowel and Y = a back
vowel with the same height specification as X, those constraints being *UNSTRESSED/[e], [o],
*UNSTRESSED/[ɛ], [ɔ], and *UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]. Each constraint states that in an unstressed
position of a word, we assign a violation mark when a particular vowel or vowel feature is present.
For example, in (11) with the constraint *UNSTRESSED/[e], [o], we specifically target the vowels [e]
and [o]. If we find one of these two vowels in an unstressed position, we assign a violation.
Similarly, in (10) with the constraint *UNSTRESSED/[+low], we target specifically vowels that have
the feature [+low]. If we find a vowel with this feature in an unstressed position, we assign a
violation mark.
6
(7)
*UNSTRESSED/[X], [Y]: assign one violation mark for each unstressed [X] or [Y].
(8)
*UNSTRESSED/[+low]: assign one violation mark for each unstressed [+low] vowel.
The following tableaux show how these constraints are ranked amongst one another. These
rankings presented are part of the larger hierarchy of constraints needed to achieve vowel reduction
in Bolognese. Additionally, violations are shown in all tableaux only for vowels that are targets for
reduction.
(9)
/lɛtˈeŋ/ ‘bed.DIM’ *UNSTRESSED/[ɛ], [ɔ] *UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
☞ [litˈeŋ]
[lɛtˈeŋ]
*!
(10)
/mɑntaˈɲoːla/ ‘mountain.DIM’ *UNSTRESSED/[+low] *UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
☞ [muntaˈɲoːla]
[mɑntaˈɲoːla]
*!
(11)
/ peˈzat / ‘goatee.DIM’ *UNSTRESSED/[e], [o] *UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
☞ [piˈzat]
[peˈzat]
*!
5.2 Max(V)
Another constraint necessary for Bolognese’s vowel reduction is MAX(V). This constraint states
that vowels that appear in the input of a word must also appear in the output. If a vowel is deleted,
we assign a violation mark. Vowels that undergo quality changes do not violate this constraint.
Additionally, this constraint prevents Bolognese from simply deleting vowels to comply with the
*UNSTRESSED constraints.
(12)
MAX(V): assign
one violation mark for each vowel deleted.
(13)
/rɔːˈbata/ ‘stuff.DIM’
☞ [ruˈbata]
[ˈr∅bata]
[rɔːˈbata]
7
MAX(V)
*UNSTRESSED/[Ɛ], [ɔ] *UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*!
*!
5.3 Advanced Tongue Root
Another set of constraints necessary for Bolognese’s vowel reduction are *[+high, -ATR] and
IDENT[ATR]. The first constraint states that if a vowel is specified as [+high] while also being
specified as [-ATR] it is assigned a violation mark. This prevents peripheral lax ([-ATR]) vowels
from surfacing. The second constraint states that if the specification of the feature [ATR] from the
underlying vowel and the surface vowel are not identical, we assign a violation mark. These
constraints can conflict with one another, however, *[+high, -ATR] outranks IDENT[ATR] in the
hierarchy. Consequently, a [+high, +ATR] vowel will always be more favored regardless of
whether it violates IDENT[ATR].
(14)
*[+high, -ATR]: assign one violation mark for each [+high, -ATR] vowel.
(15)
IDENT/[ATR]:
assign one violation mark if [ATR] is not identical in UR and SR.
The following tableau shows how these constraints are ranked amongst one another. These
rankings presented are part of the larger hierarchy of constraints needed to achieve vowel reduction
in Bolognese.
(16)
/ pɛːˈstɛːr / ‘to crush’ *[+high, -ATR]
☞ [piˈstɛːr]
[pɛːˈstɛːr]
[pɪˈstɛːr]
*!
[ˈp∅stɛːr]
MAX(v)
*UNSTRESSED/[ɛ], [ɔ]
IDENT[ATR]
*
*!
*!
5.4 Ident
The second set of constraints we need are all faithfulness constraints for specific features. In this
analysis, we adopt the constraints IDENT[back] and IDENT[round]. Both constraints state that if the
feature specification from the underlying vowel and the surface vowel for a particular feature are
not identical, we assign a violation mark. For example, in (24) with the constraint IDENT[back], we
want the specification for the feature [back] to be identical in the surface vowel as it is in the
underlying vowel; the specification being [-back]. If we find that the specification for the feature is
not identical, we assign a violation.
8
(17)
IDENT/[ATR]:
assign one violation mark if [ATR] is not identical in UR and SR.
(18)
IDENT/[round]:
assign one violation mark if [round] is not identical in UR and SR.
(19)
IDENT/[back]:
(20)
IDENT/[low]:
(21)
IDENT/[high]:
assign one violation mark if [back] is not identical in UR and SR.
assign one violation mark if [low] is not identical in UR and SR.
assign one violation mark if [high] is not identical in UR and SR.
The following tableaux show how the IDENT constraints are ranked with respect to the
*UNSTRESSED constraints. These rankings presented are part of the larger hierarchy of constraints
needed to achieve vowel reduction in Bolognese.
(22)
/lɛːtˈeŋ/ IDENT
‘bed.DIM’ [back]
☞ [litˈeŋ]
[lɛːtˈeŋ]
[ˈl∅teŋ]
[lutˈeŋ]
*!
MAX(V)
/mɑntaˈɲoːla/ IDENT
‘mountain.DIM’ [back]
☞ [muntaˈɲoːla]
[mɑntaˈɲoːla]
[m∅ntaˈɲoːla]
[mintaˈɲoːla]
*!
MAX(V)
*UNSTRESSED/[ɛ], [ɔ]
IDENT/[ATR]
*UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*
*
*
IDENT[round]
*UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*
*!
*!
(23)
*UNSTRESSED/[+low]
*!
*!
*
(24)
/ dæŋˈteŋ / IDENT
‘tooth.DIM’ [back]
☞ [diŋˈteŋ]
[duŋˈteŋ]
*!
[ˈd∅ŋteŋ]
[ˈdæŋteŋ]
MAX(V)
/ peˈzat / IDENT
‘goatee.DIM’ [back]
☞ [piˈzat]
[peˈzat]
[ˈp∅zat]
[puˈzat]
*!
MAX(V)
*UNSTRESSED/[+low]
IDENT[low]
*UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*
*
IDENT/[high]
*UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
(25)
9
*UNSTRESSED/[e], [o]
*!
*!
5.5 Weight to Stress Principle
The final constraint necessary for Bolognese’s vowel reduction is the weight-to-stress principle
(WSP). This constraint states that we assign a violation mark if we find a heavy syllable in an
unstressed position. The primary targets for this constraint are unstressed syllables that have two
moras in their nucleus. Whether the vowel is long or part of a diphthong is irrelevant.
(26)
WSP:
assign one violation mark for each long vowel contained in a heavy syllable.
The following tableau shows how this constraint is ranked with respect to the *UNSTRESSED and
IDENT constraints. The constraint MAX(μ) is used to show how violations are assigned by the
shortening of a vowel but will not be included in other tableaux. These rankings presented are part
of the larger hierarchy of constraints needed to achieve vowel reduction in Bolognese.
(27)
/ proːˈvɛːr/ ‘to try’
☞ [pruˈvɛːr]
[proːˈvɛːr]
[proˈvɛːr]
MAX(μ)
WSP
*UNSTRESSED/[e], [o]
IDENT/[high]
*
*!
*UNSTRESSED/[i], [u]
*
*
*
*!
In (28) we see how each of the constraints needed relate to one another to form a hierarchy, which
when followed during reduction will achieve the first vowel reduction pattern in Bolognese. *U
will be used in place of *UNSTRESSED in tableaux (28) and (29).
(28)
/bjɑŋˈdeŋ/
☞ [bjuŋˈdeŋ]
[bjɑŋˈdeŋ]
[bjiŋˈdeŋ]
[bjuːŋˈdeŋ]
[bjaŋˈdeŋ]
[bjɪŋˈdeŋ]
[bj∅ŋˈdeŋ]
[bjoŋˈdeŋ]
[bjɛŋˈdeŋ]
[bjeŋˈdeŋ]
[bjæŋˈdeŋ]
[bjɔŋˈdeŋ]
*[+hi]
[-ATR]
IDENT
WSP
MAX(V)
*U/[+low]
*U/[e], [o]
*U/[ɛ], [ɔ]
[bk]
*U/[i], [u]
IDENT
IDENT
IDENT
IDENT
[high]
[low]
[ATR]
[rnd]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*!
*!
*!
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*
*
As previously discussed, Bolognese exemplifies two distinct vowel reduction patterns, the second
of which only targets the vowels [ɛː], [aː], and [a] which reduce either to [a] or simply to nothing.
To achieve this second vowel reduction pattern, a new hierarchy of the constraints is needed.
Because the second vowel reduction pattern involves deletion, MAX(V) must be ranked
10
significantly lower within the hierarchy. Additionally, the constraint *UNSTRESSED/[+low] must be
ranked lower to allow for a reduction to [a], unlike the first pattern where it is ranked much higher
to allow for a reduction to [i] or [u]. While (28) reflects the first vowel reduction pattern of
Bolognese, (29) reflects the hierarchy needed to achieve the second pattern. The primary rankings
of constraints that distinguish these two patterns are IDENT[round], WSP, MAX(V), IDENT[ATR], and
*UNSTRESSED[+low].
(29)
/kastɛːˈlat/
☞ [kast∅ˈlat]
[kastɛːˈlat]
[kastɛˈlat]
[kastuˈlat]
[kastiˈlat]
[kasteˈlat]
[kastæˈlat]
[kastaˈlat]
[kastʊˈlat]
[kastɑˈlat]
[kastɔˈlat]
*[+hi]
[-ATR]
IDENT
IDENT
[bk]
[rnd]
WSP
IDENT
*U/[e], [o]
*U/[ɛ], [ɔ]
*U/[i], [u]
[ATR]
IDENT
IDENT
[high]
[low]
*U/[+low]
MAX(V)
*
*!
*!
*!
*
*!
*!
*
*
*!
*
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*!
*!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6 Further Discussion
As it stands now, it is unclear as to what the criterion is that determines how words are categorized
into one vowel reduction pattern over the other. Saunders (1984) investigates the morphology of
Bolognese and in doing so proposes a class system for words that determines how words
metaphonize. It was hypothesized that there may be a correlation between the two vowel reduction
patterns and Saunders’ class system, though as seen in (30) a correlation is not apparent.
(30)
Bol.
VR Pattern Saunders’ Class Gloss
[ˈkuːl]
1
I
‘ass’
[ˈdæŋt]
1
III
‘tooth’
[aˈnɛːl]
2
III
‘ring’
[ˈnɛːv]
2
I
‘snow’
[ˈtɛːvla]
2
II
‘table’
Closer inspection between the vowel reduction patterns and Saunders’ class system may be needed,
though as it currently stands there is yet to be evidence found that shows support for this. What
does appear to be certain regarding Bolognese’s vowel reduction is that it exemplifies two distinct
patterns, one of contrast enhancement and one of prominence reduction. In addition to this, there is
an observed derived environment effect, where vowel reduction occurs in an unstressed syllable,
11
but only when this context has been created by something responsible for shifting stress off the
vowel that reduces
An intriguing discovery was made in comparing Bolognese words that demonstrate the second
vowel reduction pattern with their cognates in standard Italian. What was found is that where in
Bolognese we see the target vowel reduce following the second reduction pattern, in standard
Italian a consonant adjacent to the target vowel is often lengthened (5). This suggests that perhaps
there is historical evidence that can explain this categorization, where in Bolognese’s development
the adoption of a second vowel reduction pattern was necessary, but in standard Italian the
lengthening of an adjacent consonant was necessary. It is unclear as to what this historical fact may
be, though it is certainly associated with Bolognese’s development from vulgar Latin. For modern
speakers of the language, the categorization of a word to display one vowel reduction pattern over
the other appears arbitrary, though a wug-test-like experiment may reveal whether there are
developing adaptions for patterns of categorization or if it remains truly arbitrary.
7 Conclusion
This study has shed light on the intricate phonological intricacies of Bolognese, contextualized
within the broader framework of Romance linguistics. Through the implication of Optimality
Theory, we have examined the phenomena of contrast enhancement in Bolognese and found
evidence for the necessity of a co-phonological analysis of the vowel reduction pattern. The careful
analysis of Bolognese’s derived environment context has provided evidence of the lexically
encoded nature of vowel reduction. Moreover, our research has underscored the historical depth of
Bolognese's development, as evidenced by intriguing correlations with Italian cognates in relation
to the second vowel reduction pattern.
8 Acknowledgments
The data in this paper was primarily collected from the second edition of Dizionario BologneseItaliano (Lepri & Vitali 2009), with IPA transcriptions reviewed by Edward Rubin. I thank Edward
Rubin and Aaron Kaplan for providing me with the opportunity to conduct this research under their
guidance and supervision, and for providing feedback on this work. I thank Edward Rubin, Aaron
Kaplan, and Tanner Jones for their extensive discussion of the work. I thank the University of Utah
Student Conference in Linguistics, the University of Utah Undergraduate Research Symposium,
and the University of Utah College of Humanities Research Symposium for providing me with the
opportunity to present this work. I thank the University of Utah Office of Undergraduate Research
for funding a portion of this work.
12
Works Cited
Canepari, L., & Vitali, D. (1995). Pronuncia e Grafia del Bolognese. Rivista Italiana di
Dialettologia, 119-164.
Compagnia del Bolognese. (1999, September 2). Retrieved from Al Sît Bulgnais - Il Sito
Bolognese: https://www.bulgnais.com
Crosswhite, K. (2001). Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. In L. Horn, Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2024). Ethnologue: Languages of the World.
Twenty-seventh edition. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com
Lepri, L., & Vitali, D. (2009). Dizionario Bolognese-Italiano Italiano-Bolognese Dizionèri
Bulgnaiṡ-Itagliàn Itagliàn-Bulgnaiṡ. Bologna: Pendragon.
Saunders, G. (1984). The expression of number in Bolognese nouns and adjectives: a
morphological analysis. Romanitas: Studies in Romance Linguistics, 213-244.
Vitali, D. (2008). Per un’analisi diacronica del bolognese: Storia di un dialetto al centro
dell’Emilia-Romagna. Ianua. Revista Philologica Romanica Vol. 8, 19-44.
13