Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:44:29.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The status of rule reordering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard M. Hogg
Richard M. Hogg
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the standard theory of generative phonology, the phonological component consists of a set of partially ordered rules; where G1 and G2 are synchronic grammars of a given language L at chronologically earlier and chronologically later stages of L respectively, G1 and G2 may differ in at least the following ways: (a) G2 may contain new (phonological) rules ordered later than all rules in G1; (b) G2 may contain new rules ordered before some rules already present in G1 (c) G2 may contain the same rules as G1, but arranged in some different order; (d) G2 may operate upon a different underlying representation from that for G1 (and hence contain, to a greater or lesser degree, quite different rules); (e) some rules present in G1 may no longer be present in G2 (f) some rules o7f G1 may be present only in a modified form in G2.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 103 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Anderson, S. R. (1975). On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. JL II. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. N. (1975). Further observations on unmarked rule order. IJAL 41. 73–78.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1973). Review of Lyons, (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. JL 9. 198–202.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E. (1974). Marginal'nye zvukovje zakony. VJa fasc. 4. 81–86.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1965). Altenglische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (1939). Some Old Frisian sound-changes. TPhS 1939. 78–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). An Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalizations. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cooley, M. (1972). Velars in English: a diachronic generative analysis. Unpublished dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1973). Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. LIn 4. 3–16.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1965). Sound change. Lg 45. 185–205.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1971). Gemination, breaking and reordering in the synchronic phonology of Old English. Lingua 28. 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1974). Further remarks on breaking and gemination. ArchL (n.s.) 5. 47–52.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (1975). The place of analogy. Nph 59. 109–113.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. (Ms). The chronology and status of ‘second fronting’.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. (1963). Altenglisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2nd ed.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (1974). The base form of English a/an: a reply. Lingua 33. 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joos, M. (1942). A phonological dilemma in Canadian English. Lg 18. 141–144.Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
King, R. D. (1973). Rule insertion. Lg 49. 551–578.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968a). How abstract is phonology? Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968b). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Explanation in phonology. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 189–227.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. 101–171.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1971). Boundaries as obstruents. JL 7. 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightner, T. M. (1974). A problem with archaic alternations. PiL 7. 249–250.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1964). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Prokosch, E. (1939). A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: LSA.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1974). Sheltering environments and negative contexts. Edinburgh Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 31–41.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1952). The study of Old English phonology. TPhS 1952. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. H. (1933). Three Northumbrian poems. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Smith, N. S. H. (1973). The phonologization of phonetic phenomena. Unpublished, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1974). Restructuring. Lingua 33. 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildhagen, K. (1905). Der Psalter des Eadwine von Canterbury. Studien zur Englischen Philologie 13.Google Scholar
Wright, J. (1954). Grammar of the Gothic language. 2nd edn., ed. by Sayce, O.Oxford:Clarendon Press.Google Scholar