Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T12:44:16.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy and phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard M. Hogg
Richard M. Hogg
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Medieval Literature, University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the more welcome developments in generative phonology has been the acceptance of the long-established and well-known concept that the morphophonemic structure of a language may be reorganized in an attempt to establish ‘paradigmatic coherence’, that is to say, a major rôle of analogy is to eliminate or minimize allomorphic variation within a paradigm. Of course it would be wrong to suppose that analogical change is restricted to the elimination of allomorphy; indeed, it is even possible to find examples of analogical change which increase allomorphy, as in the development of the plural imperative form onto:n of Greek einai ‘to be’ in place of the more regular esto:n.1 But, since analogical elimination of allomorphy plays such a crucial rôle in linguistic change, we may safely concentrate on that aspect of analogy in this paper without denying the many other types of change in which analogy plays a part.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 55 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1974). The organiation of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1966) [1952]. The correspondence fallacy in structural linguistics. Studies by Members of the English Department, Istanbul University 3. 1–41.Google Scholar
Hamp, E. P., Householder, F. W. & Austerlitz, R. (eds), Readings in linguistics II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 271–298.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1965). Altenglische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Y.-R. (1958) [1934]. The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4. 363–397.Google Scholar
Repr. inJoos, M. (ed), Readings in linguistics I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.38–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dahl, I. (1938). Substantival inflexion in early Old English (Lund Studies in English 7). Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of the back vowels in Modern English. LIn 8. 611–625.Google Scholar
Harris, J. W. (1973). On the order of certain phonological rules in Spanish. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 59–76.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1960). Structural linguistics. Chicago: Phoenix Books.Google Scholar
Hirt, H.Handbuch des Urgermanischen I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1976). The status of rule reordering. JL 12. 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1977) Old English r-metathesis and generative phonology. JL 13. 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1978). The Duke of York gambit: a variation. Lingua 44. 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (1977). The significance of linguistic generalizations. Lg 53 574–620.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1975). Phonology: theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1949). The phonemic and grammatical aspects of language in their interrelations. In Lejeune, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the sixth international congress of linguists. Paris: Klincksieck. 5–18.Google Scholar
Kent, R. G. (1932). The sounds of Latin. Language Monograph 12. Philadelphia: LSA.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. (1975) Metathesis and Old English phonology. LIn 6. 377–411.Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1968). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1976). In defence of extrinsic ordering. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.), The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 76–103.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). How abstract is phonology? Bloomington (Ind.): Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Explanation in phonology. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall. 189–227.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1974). On the evaluation measure. In Bruck, A., Fox, R. A. & La, Galy M. W. (eds), Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 328–37.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1976). Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.), The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 160–186.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & O'Neil, W. (1976). The phonology of Old English inflections. LIn 7.527–557.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. (1976). The interaction of phonological rules and the polarity of language. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.), The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 41–54.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, J. (1966) [1945–1949]. La nature des procés dits ‘analogiques’. AL 5. 121–138.Google Scholar
Repr. in Hamp, E. P., Householder, F. W. & Austerlitz, R. (eds) Readings in linguistics II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 158–74.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loey, A. van (1970). Schönfeld's historische grammatika van het Nederlands. Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
Manczak, W. (1958). Tendances générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 7. 298–325, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972a). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972b). Some reflections on Latin morphophonology. TPhS 1972. 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, H. & Stopp, H. (1970). Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen I.I, bearbeitet von Sauerbeck, K.O. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Moser, V. (1929). Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik I.I.. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Phonetic explanation in phonology. In Bruck, A., Fox, R. A. & La, Galy M. W. (eds), Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 251–274.Google Scholar
Paul, H., Moser, H. & Schrobler, I. (1969). Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. JL 12. 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1959). In defence of WP. TPhS 1959. 116–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in general linguistics, trans. Baskin, W.New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, E. H. (1947). An introduction to linguistic science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1969). Principles of Phonology, trans. Baltaxe, C. A. M.Berkeley:University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. B. (1974). Analogy reconsidered. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (ed), Historical linguistics I. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 427–445.Google Scholar