Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:32:01.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General phonological rules and phonetic processes: Russian palatalization assimilation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kyril T. Holden
Kyril T. Holden*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The kinds of rules found in the phonological components of generative grammars have been traditionally grouped into three types: (1) LEXICAL REDUNDANCY or MORPHEME STRUCTURE rules, which fill in redundant features of systematic phonemes within morphemes; (2) PHONOLOGICAL rules, which operate both within morphemes as well as across morpheme boundaries, and can either add or change features; (3) PHONETIC rules, which supply n-ary values to the binary distinctive feature specifications which are the output of the earlier phonological rules. It has furthermore been assumed that these three subcomponents are strictly ordered with respect to one another. Recent studies, however, have revealed a number of rules which do not conveniently fall into these categories, and still others have been found which contradict the assumed ordering relationship (Vennemann, 1972; Anderson, 1975; Daniels, 1973; Labov, 1972). Many of these rules exhibit articulatory phonetic regularities which are obscured at the level of binary distinctive features. Instead they apply at a level when scalar values have already been assigned to the individual features.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , Spring 1977 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1977

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1975 On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. JL 11.39–62.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. 1976 Smjagchenije soglasnykh pered soglasnymi. Russkaja rech’ 1.51–3.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. 1972 How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell and Macaulay, 1972:1–21.Google Scholar
Brame, Micahel K. (ed.) 1972 Contributions to Generative Phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian 1969 Syllables and redundancy rules in generative phonology. JL 6.1–17 (1969-70).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew 1973 On the formal expression of natural rules in phonology. JL 9.223–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1964 Current issues in linguistic theory. In Fodor & Katz, 1964:50–118.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Daniels, William J. 1973 Assimilation in Russian consonant clusters: II. PIL 6.351–70.Google Scholar
Daniels, William J. 1974 Natural phonology and the teaching of Russian pronunciation. Unpublished paper presented to the Soviet-American conference on the Russian language, Oct. 1974. MIT.Google Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1973 Transformational Grammar as a Theory of language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 10]Google Scholar
Drage, C. L. 1967a Factors in the regressive palatalization of consonants in Russian. ZPhon 20.119–42.Google Scholar
Drage, C. L. 1967b Changes in the regressive palatalization of consonants in Russian since 1870. ZPhon 20.181–206.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.) 1964 The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Foley, James Ms Systematic morphophonology. Unpublished monograph. Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris 1959 The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. [Description and analysis of contemporary standard Russian, 1]Google Scholar
Holden, Kyril T. 1972 Loan-words and phonological systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Holden, Kyril T. 1976 Assimilation rates of borrowings and phonological productivity. Lg 52.131–47.Google Scholar
Kim, Chin-Wu 1972 Two phonological notes: A-sharp and B-flat. In Brame, 1972:155–70.Google Scholar
Krysin, L. P. (ed.) 1974 Russkij jazyk po dannym massovogo obsledovanija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1963 The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1972 The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stockwell and Macaulay, 1972:101–71.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.) 1968 Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968 Aspects of Phonological Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard 1967 Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43.393–436.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S. (eds.) 1972 Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo 1972 Phonetic detail in assimilation: problems in Germanic phonology. Lg 48.863–92.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, Marvin, C Herzog, I. 1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann and Malkiel, 1968:95–195.Google Scholar