Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:21:14.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the interaction of phonological rules of various types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen R. Anderson
Stephen R. Anderson
Affiliation:
Harvard University and Bell Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussions of linguistic structure generally accept a distinction between rules of sentence structure and rules of sound structure, but there is very little agreement on further subcategorization beyond this general dichotomy. Indeed, recent discussion in the area of syntax and semantics has been dominated, at least superficially, by the question of whether it is possible and/or desirable to distinguish within the rules of sentence structure between syntactic rules and semantic rules, and perhaps to impose further subcategorizations on each of these; see, for example, the contributions by Chomsky and Postal to Peters (1972). Within syntax and semantics, however, there is probably much less disagreement than meets the eye: most would agree that a desirable goal for linguistics is to isolate and distinguish as many types of rule as possible, and to associate each type with a set of maximally restrictive formal and substantive constraints.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 39 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

Allen, W. S. (1956), Structure and system in the Abaza verbal complex. TPhS (1956). 127–176.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1969). West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1974a). On a dis-agreement rule in Abkhaz. To appear in Lin 5 (3).Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1974b). The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. & Browne, W. (1973). On keeping exchange rules in Czech. PIL 6. 445–482.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1972). Introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (1970). Notes on the phonology of the imperative in Danish. ARIPUC 4. 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, H. (1971). A commentary on Hjelmslev's outline of the Danish expression system (I). AL 13 (2). 173–211.Google Scholar
Basbøll, H. (1972). Some conditioning factors for the pronunciation of short vowels in Danish with special reference to syllabification. ARIPUC 6. 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bunye, M. V. R. & Yap, E. P. (1971). Cebuano grammar notes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dumézil, G. (1967). Études abkhaz. (Documents anatoliens sur les langues et les traditions du Caucase V.) Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1973). Syllable counting rules in phonology. Paper read to the Annual Meeting, Linguistic Society of America at San Diego, California.Google Scholar
House, A. F. & Fairbanks, G. (1953). The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustic characteristics of vowels. JAcS 25. 105–113.Google Scholar
Howard, I. (1972). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackson, K. (1967). A historical phonology of Breton. Dublin: The Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. & Stong-Jensen, M. (1973). A revised directional theory of rule application in phonology. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT 108. 270–277.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576–649. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1974). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 1–136. Tokyo: The TEC Corp.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G. & Noll, C. (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Munro, P. & Benson, P. (1973). Reduplication and rule ordering in Luiseño. IJAL 39. 15–21.Google Scholar
Palacas, A. (1971). Simultaneous vs. iterative rules in phonology. Paper read to the Annual Meeting, Linguistic Society of America at St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Paris, C. (1969). Indices personnels intraverbaux et syntaxe de la phrase dans les langues du Caucase du nord-ouest. BSL 64. 104–183.Google Scholar
Peters, P. S. (1972). Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Rischel, J. (1969). Notes on the Danish vowel pattern. ARIPUC 3. 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Phonetic detail in assimilation: problems in Germanic phonology. Lg 48. 863–892.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. University of Illinois Doctoral dissertation. (Available from Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.)Google Scholar