The ways in which the vowel system of Vulgar Latin (VL) differs from that of Classical Latin (CL) have been well documented. These differences arise from historical innovations including:

• (1) the monophthongization of the diphthongs [oj] œ and [aj] œ to [ē] and respectively,

• (2) the lowering of the short vowels to respectively, and the consequent introduction of a new phonemic degree of vowel height for the front unrounded and back rounded vowels,

• (3) the neutralization of the phonemic CL length differences, all stressed vowels now being long whatever the length of their CL source, and all unstressed vowels being short, and

• (4) the introduction of phonemic stress, since the position of stress is no longer synchronically predictable because of the neutralization of vowel length mentioned in (3).

Recent studies of John Wilkins, author of An essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language (1668) have examined aspects of his life and work which illustrate the modernity of his attitudes, both as a theologian, sympathetic to the ecumenical ideals of seventeenth-century reformers like John Amos Comenius (DeMott 1955, 1958), and as an amateur scientist enthusiastically engaged in forwarding the interests of natural philosophy in his involvement with the Royal Society. His linguistic work has, accordingly, been examined for its relevance to seventeenth-century thought and for evidence of its modernity; described by a twentieth-century scientist as “impressive” and as “a prodigious piece of work” (Andrade 1936:6, 7), the Essay has been highly praised for its classification of reality (Vickery 1953:326, 342) and for its insight into phonetics and semantics (Linsky 1966:60). It has also, incidentally, been examined for the evidence it offers on seventeenth-century pronunciation (Dobson 1968).

In certain cases the difference between consecutive stages of a language may be explained as a change in the system of rules of the grammar of that language (Chomsky & Halle 1968, 249-252; King 1969; Kiparsky 1968). Between consecutive stages a rule may be added, lost, structurally simplified, or reordered relative to the earlier order. Such changes among phonological rules, when phonetically conditioned, represent an increase in grammatical simplicity in a measurable sense (King 1969, 39-63, 65; Kiparsky 1968; Halle 1962).

It has also been recognized that grammatical categories can condition phonological rules. The function of such conditioning appears to be the preservation of surface structure organization defined by grammatical categories, or what Kiparsky has termed “paradigm coherence” (1972, 208). Yet grammatical (non-phonetic) conditioning of phonological rules has been regarded as decreasing, rather than increasing, simplicity (King 1969, 134-139). In this paper I shall be concerned with the historical development of grammatical conditioning on phonological rules, and the role which paradigm coherence, or paradigmatic regularization, plays in grammatical simplification.

The linguistic approach to historical grammar. Most published material on the subject of historical dialects of English takes little interest in syntax. In recent decades, however, a growing number of titles have attempted to approach the syntax of historical dialects from a structuralist viewpoint. Some of the best recent material uses a transformational model. It is the purpose of this paper to illustrate the application of the “Scale-and-Category” model to the Old English verbal group, and thereby to suggest the appropriateness of the Scale-and-Category model for a more complete synchronic description of Old English. The principles of Scale-and-Category grammar were published by Prof. M. A. K. Halliday in 1961. Since then a number of published works have described language on these principles, but the study to which this paper is most directly indebted is Prof. M. Gregory’s yet unpublished description of modern English.

The principles of Scale-and-Category grammar were published by Prof. M. A. K. Halliday in 1961. Since then a number of published works have described language on these principles, but the study to which this paper is most directly indebted is Prof. M. Gregory’s yet unpublished description of modern English.

The process of vowel nasalization in Portuguese has been a fascinating topic for investigation since the earliest days of Romance philology, and much energy has been expended to determine the origin, development, and contemporary manifestations of the Portuguese nasal vowels. Despite the large amount of scholarly activity devoted to the nasal vowels, however, surprisingly little attention had traditionally been paid to the manner in which they are recognized and produced by native speakers, other than a few traditional phonemic analyses. More recently, aspects of the Portuguese nasal vowel system have been investigated within the framework of generative phonology, with a view toward motivating a series of highly abstract structures underlying the forms of modern Portuguese; as a consequence, more attention was paid to the various details of the vowel nasalization process. The present paper is offered as an addition to the synchronic studies of Portuguese vowel nasalization, since the nasalization process presents several unique peculiarities which warrant a more detailed investigation. The object of this report is to bring up for discussion several aspects of vowel nasalization in Portuguese which have either been neglected in the literature, or which have received incomplete or conflicting descriptions. Other than an introduction to the general problem OI the Portuguese nasal vowels, no attempt will be made at reanalyzing areas which have been adequately covered in other studies, even when the opinions of the present writer differ radically from those of other investigators.