Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T15:12:56.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical phonology and sound change: the case of the Scottish vowel length rule1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

April M. S. McMahon
April M. S. McMahon
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge, and Selwyn College, Cambridge CB3 9DAEngland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The key assumption in the standard generative approach to historical linguistics (King, 1969) is that each sound change is incorporated directly into the native speaker's grammar as the final phonological rule, moving up gradually into the grammar as further changes are implemented. Restructuring of underlying representations by later generations during acquisition is theoretically permitted, but infrequently invoked, with the result that the historical phonology of a language will be almost directly mirrored in the order of its phonological rules. The only extractable generalizations are then that the ‘highest’ rules will correspond to the oldest changes, and that a sound change and the rule into which it is converted will tend to be identical or at least show a high degree of similarity in formulation. This approach casts no light at all on the problem of the implementation of sound change.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 29 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Abercrombie, D. (1979). The accents of Standard English in Scotland. In Aitken, A. J. & McArthur, T. (eds), Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh: Chambers. 69–84.Google Scholar
Agutter, A. (1988a). The not-so-Scottish Vowel Length Rule. In Anderson, J. M. & Macleod, N. (eds), Edinburgh studies in the English language, Edinburgh: John Donald. 120–132.Google Scholar
Agutter, A. (1988b). The dangers of dialect parochialism: the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical dialectology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–22.Google Scholar
Aitken, A. J. (1981). The Scottish Vowel Length Rule. In Benskin, M. & Samuels, M. L. (eds) So meny people, longages and tonges. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project. 131–157.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. (1965). Vox latina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. (1984). A metrical reinterpretation of some traditional claims about quantity and stress. In Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. (eds) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 83–106.Google Scholar
Archangeli, D. (1988). Aspects of underspeciflcation theory. Phonology 5. 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LIn 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetics 22. 129–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. Y., & Wang, W. (1975). Sound change: actuation and implementation. Lg 51. 255–281.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1962). Some factors of vowel duration and their cross-linguistic validity. JASA 34. 1141–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieth, E. (1932). A grammar of the Buchan dialect. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Grant, W. (1912). The pronunciation of English in Scotland. Reprinted 1970. Maryland: McGrath.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift and the phonology of the back vowels in modern English. LIn 8. 611–25.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1985). Phonological variation and change: studies in Hiberno-English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1987). A hierarchical model of length variation in vowels. In Dressler, W., Luschützky, H., Pfeiffer, O. & Rennison, J. (eds), Phonologica 1984. Cambridge: CUP. 95–101.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1989a). Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. JL 25. 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1989b). Derived phonological contrasts. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: a commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson. London: Croom Helm. 87–105.Google Scholar
House, A. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. JASA 33. 1174–1178.Google Scholar
Johnston, P. (1980). A synchronic and historical view of Border area bimoric vowel systems. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–93.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1988). Phonological change. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. I: Linguistic theory – foundations. Cambridge: CUP. 363–415.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Lg 57. 267–308.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1974). Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds) Historical linguistics, Vol. II: Theory and description in phonology. Amsterdam: North Holland. 311–352.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). John Hart vindicatus? A study in the interpretation of early phoneticians. FLH 1: 75–96.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1981). Undigested phonology and synchronic ‘structure’. In Goyvaerts, D. L. (ed.), Phonology in the 1980s. Ghent: Story-Scientia. 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1990). Where do extraterritorial Englishes come from? Dialect input and recodification in transported Englishes. In Adamson, S., Vincent, N., Law, V. & Wright, S. (eds) Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 245–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1979). On Middle English lengthening in open syllables. Linguistic Analysis 5. 1–27.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McClure, J. D. (1977). Vowel duration in a Scottish dialect. JIPA 7. 10–16.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1989). Constraining Lexical Phonology: evidence from English vowels. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. (1990). Vowel shift, free rides and strict cyclicity. Lingua 80. 197–225.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Murray, J. (1873). The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland. London: Asher & Co.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. (1860). The provincialisms of Belfast and the surrounding districts pointed out and corrected. Belfast: Mayne.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. & Leniste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. JASA 32. 693–703.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. (1974). Sheltering environments and negative contexts: a case against making phonological rules state things that don't happen. Edinburgh University Department of Linguistics Work in Progress 4. 31–41.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Th. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Wang, W. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Lg 45. 9–25.Google Scholar
Watson, G. (1923). The Roxburghshire word book. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Vol. II: The British Isles. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wettstein, P. (1942). The phonology of a Berwickshire dialect. Zurich: Schuler.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (1975). Tense and lax vowels – degree of constriction or pharyngeal volume? Lund University Phonetics Laboratory Working Papers 11. 109–33.Google Scholar
Zai, R. (1942). The phonology of the Morebattle dialect. Lucerne: Ræber.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, S. & Sapon, S. (1958). Notes on vowel duration seen cross-linguistically. JASA 30. 152–3.Google Scholar