Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:20:47.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond and behind the tables – a reply to Michael Bulley: Why no mips?1

Delving deeper into the phonology of non-occurring possible words of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2012

Daniel Huber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in ET 109 Michael Bulley (2012: 35) presents ‘the permutations for monosyllables in common use in standard British English having the phonetic pattern: single consonant + short vowel + single consonant’, using the OED as his source for data. While acknowledging the usefulness of Bulley's tables for pedagogical purposes, I wish to offer a very distinct answer to the question why certain words are missing from the contemporary English lexicon although they could have occurred as possible words.

Type
Original Article
Information
English Today , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 60 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

1

David Crystal, a member of our editorial board, recently sent in a note pointing out an earlier account by Denyse Rockey (Phonetic Lexicon, London: Heyden, 1973), which is highlighted in chapter 28 of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by David Crystal (2nd ed. CUP, 1997).

References

Bulley, M. 2012. ‘Why no mips?’ English Today 28(1), 35–49.Google Scholar