Introduction

In chapter 1, I quoted Labov (1978) in defence of my intention to reintegrate synchronic and diachronic evidence. Labov's (1978: 281) view is that, provided we adopt the uniformitarian principle, and therefore accept that ‘the forces which operated to produce the historical record are the same as those which can be seen operating today’, we can use the linguistic present to explain the linguistic past. However, if we are serious about the reintegration of synchrony and diachrony, the connection should work both ways: that is, the linguistic past should ideally also help us understand and model the present.

The first part of the equation has already been proved: in chapter 4, I showed that a possible life-cycle for sound changes and phonological rules can be formulated in Lexical Phonology. The default case was represented by æ-Tensing; and a variant pathway, involving two cycles of alteration of the underlying representations, was required for processes like the Scottish Vowel Length Rule, which involve historical rule inversion. A model designed primarily for synchronic phonological description therefore provides insights into change. In this chapter, I hope to show that we can indeed also use the past to explain the phonological present, with special reference to English /r/, which is of particular relevance because it has been discussed in a variety of phonological frameworks (see Broadbent 1991, McCarthy 1991, 1993, Scobbie 1992, Donegan 1993, Harris 1994, Giegerich in press); is characterised by interesting interactions between /r/ itself and preceding vowels; and arguably again involves rule inversion.