The term ‘componential analysis’ is used here to refer to the theory of semantic structure developed by Goodenough (1956, 1965, etc.), Lounsbury (1956, 1964, etc.) and others. Obviously the notion of a semantic component - or ‘feature,’ or whatever other term is applied - is common to a wide variety of semantic theories, and ‘componential analysis’ is sometimes used (e.g. by Lyons 1968) to cover the whole of this wider field; nevertheless the Goodenough-Lounsbury theory is sufficiently unified and different from others to warrant separate treatment.

Although the theory is intended to be, and undoubtedly is, much more widely applicable, a great deal of the descriptive work in componential analysis is in the field of kinship terminologies, and the basic concepts of the theory may conveniently be exemplified from this semantic domain. Drawing on the sign theory of Charles Morris, Goodenough distinguishes between the denotatum, designatum and significatum of a word (1965: 286 n.3):

This paper comprises some of the reactions of a psycholinguist to a book which has already attracted considerable critical attention: D. T. Langendoen’s The Study of Syntax: the Generative-Transformational Approach to the Structure of American English. These views are not essentially at variance with the theoretical and pedagogical criticisms of Sampson (1970), Householder (1971), or Chambers (1971), but rather complement and supplement them. The questions raised here are of a somewhat more fundamental nature in the context of linguistic inquiry, having to do with certain assumptions most formal linguists take for granted – assumptions concerning the validity of introspective data and the formalizability of presuppositions. In a sense, the present critique is a general indictment of some current trends in linguistics, but The Study of Syntax, in its eclectic attempt to epitomize them all, invites the brunt of the criticism.

Sanford Schane’s monograph French Phonology and Morphology, published in 1968, was the first extensive treatment of that subject in a generative framework. Although its merits and faults have been discussed at length in reviews, the scarcety of subsequent contrasting analyses within the same framework would seem to imply that Schane’s study is essentially correct within that framework and/or that the subject matter itself holds no further theoretical interest for generative phonologists. The present paper challenges both of these implications. The discussion focuses on Schane’s formulation of the underlying vocalic system of French. Schane’s assumptions about phonological grammars, his analysis, and his methodology are open to question. Section 1 of this study discusses the concept “rule of grammar” as developed by Schane and considers possible alternatives. Inconsistencies of Schane’s analysis are illustrated in Section 2, while Section 3 demonstrates that the data which should offer the strongest support for Schane’s analysis in fact fail to do so. To the extent that Schane represents current phonological theory and practice, the criticisms voiced here have, of course, a wider application.

The discussion focuses on Schane’s formulation of the underlying vocalic system of French. Schane's assumptions about phonological grammars, his analysis, and his methodology are open to question. Section 1 of this study discusses the concept “rule of grammar” as developed by Schane and considers possible alternatives. Inconsistencies of Schane’s analysis are illustrated in Section 2, while Section 3 demonstrates that the data which should offer the strongest support for Schane’s analysis in fact fail to do so. To the extent that Schane represents current phonological theory and practice, the criticisms voiced here have, of course, a wider application.

In his recent dissertation, David Stampe (1972) discusses the notions of natural processes in child phonology. Earlier, Ingram (1971) discussed the concepts and formulations of phonological rules in child language. What we propose to demonstrate here is that the rules inherent in acquisitional phonology are ordered and, moreover, that these rules are ordered implicationally (in the sense of “unilateral implication” enunciated by Jakobson in discussing the stratified structure of the phoneme inventory). Our contention is that there are rules in child phonology, that these rules are ordered, and that while the entire inventory of rules does not appear in any child’s phonology, the presence of any one necessitates the presence of others - in a specific order.

Cette étude veut être un complément d’information à nos travaux déjà effectués sur le parler des Franco-Canadiens de la Saskatchewan. En août 1970, poursuivant notre série d’enquêtes phonétiques, nous avons visité les villages de Willow-Bunch et de Bellegarde dans le sud-est de cette province, dans le but d’examiner quelques aspects phonétiques du français parlé dans ces deux centres actifs de la minorité francophone de la région.

A Sémantèse. Toute tentative de représentation et de mesure du temps présuppose qu’on s’est donné les moyens de les réaliser. A ces fins, se sont d’abord imposés à l’homme les phénomènes facilement et concrètement observables que sont les cycles naturels: l’incessante alternance du jour et de la nuit a permis la définition du concept de journée, le cycle lunaire celui de mois, le retour périodique des saisons celui d’année.

On n’a pas à insister sur les avatars qui, dans l’histoire des civilisations, ont abouti à conférer à ces mots une valeur, une DURÉE stable. On se contentera d’observer que les progrès réalisés dans cette voie ont toujours été liés à ceux de l’astronomie. Ainsi, par exemple, fut-on de plus en plus en situation d’expliquer rationnellement les variations de la durée du jour ou de la course apparente du soleil, de corriger certaines inexactitudes (durée exacte de l’année solaire grâce à l’invention de l’année bissextile), de revoir la notion de mois (qui ne se calcule plus d’après le cycle lunaire), etc… Ce bref et très incomplet excursus montre à suffisance combien, dans l’esprit de l’homme, la représentation du temps est tributaire de la représentation spatiale.

In a recent paper Kiparsky 1971 has proposed the notion of rule opacity to account for certain phenomena which eluded explanation under earlier formulations utilizing such concepts as feeding and bleeding. While I feel that Kiparsky’s proposal is basically sound, there are a few minor problems associated with the concept of rule opacity as postulated by Kiparsky. I will deal with these problems in this paper.

In traditional studies of historical phonology, there is frequently a division between sound change and analogy. Sound change is said to proceed gradually and inexorably under strictly phonetic conditions; “La règle générale est que les transformations phonétiques s’opèrent avec une constance absolue c’est-à-dire que les mêmes phonèmes placés dans les mêmes conditions, se développent d’une manière identique.” (Schwan-Behrens 1963: 12). Occasionally, when the conditions are not apparent, there may be some concern until further research uncovers the conditioning factors. Such was the case with Verner’s law, for example. Yet in any interesting situation, there remains a body of forms for which the proper phonetic environment cannot be found. The items just do not follow the normal phonetic “laws.” In these cases, analogy is often called on to explain the discrepancy, and also to account for the reintroduction of regularity into a system “ravaged” by the forces of phonological change; “L’analogie joue un rôle considérable en roman (et en français) qui s’est reconstitué, comme on l’a dit, sur les ruines du latin où les ravages d’une évolution phonétique brutale avaient entièrement boulversé le système des oppositions morphologiques et de leurs valeurs” (Guiraud 1965: 63).

I shall illustrate here the importance of syntactic ‘blends’ for a transformational conception of syntax and, in the light of this, I shall show that if one accepts the theory of syntax outlined in Chomsky (1965), one must discard the celebrated deep structure distinction advocated there for easy and eager and the rule of Tough- Movement.