Although in many interface theories, the domains of phrasal phonological processes are defined in terms of prosodic constituents, D’Alessandro and Scheer (2015) argue that their proposed modification of phase theory, Modular PIC, renders prosodic constituents superfluous. Phrasal phonological domains can instead be defined directly in the syntax. In this response, we argue that Modular PIC does not provide a convincing new approach to the syntax-phonology interface, as it is both too powerful and too restrictive. We show that the analysis offered of raddoppiamento fonosintattico in Eastern Abruzzese does not justify the loss of restrictiveness Modular PIC brings to phase theory. We also show that Modular PIC is too restrictive to account for phenomena, from Bantu languages and others, that have received satisfactory analyses within interface theories that appeal to prosodic constituents. We conclude that Modular PIC does not successfully replace prosodic constituent approaches to the interface.

Many cases of allomorphic alternation are restricted to specific lexical items but at the same time show a regular phonological distribution. Standard approaches cannot deal with these cases because they must either resort to diacritic features or list regular phonological contexts as idiosyncratic. These problems can be overcome if we assume that allomorphs are lexically organized as a partially ordered set. If no ordering is established, allomorphic choice is determined by the phonology—in particular, by the emergence of the unmarked (TETU). In other cases, TETU effects are insufficient, and lexical ordering determines the preference for dominant allomorphs.