Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:13:00.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative choronology: three methods of reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Matthew Y. Chen
Matthew Y. Chen
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In reconstructing protoforms and linguistic histories, many methods can and have been employed with varying degrees of effectiveness (cf. Bonfante, 1945, for a general discussion). For the specific purpose of establishing the time sequence of phonological changes according to which sound systems have evolved, traditionally two procedures have been most frequently followed: one is to sift the historical records for clues to the dates of linguistic innovations, and the other is to infer from the systematic correspondences between protoforms and their modern reflexes the internally motivated order of diachronic rules.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , September 1976 , pp. 209 - 258
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

Andersen, H. (1972). Diphthongization. Lg 48. 11–50.Google Scholar
Baron, S. (MS). On the tips of many tongues: apical vowels across Sino-Tibetan. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Language and Linguistic Studies, Atlanta, 1974.Google Scholar
Bàrtoli, M. (1925). Introduzione alla neolinguistica. Geneva: L. S. Olschki.Google Scholar
Bonfante, G. (1945). On reconstruction and linguistic method. Word I. 83–94; 132–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, O. (1894). Relative Sprachchronologie. IF 4. 8–31.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (MS). Extrinsic ordering lives. Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1973.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1967). The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34. 115–136.Google Scholar
Chang, K. (1971). Wenchow [= Wen-zhou] historical phonology. Academia Sinica: Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology 32. 13–76.Google Scholar
Chao, R. Y. (1928). Studies in the modern Wú dialects. (Tsing Hua College Research Institute, monograph 4.) Peking.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1972). The time dimension: contribution toward a theory of sound change. FL 8. 457–498.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1973). Cross-dialectal comparison: a case study and some theoretical considerations. Journal of Chinese linguistics I. 38–63.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1974). Natural phonology from the diachronic vantage point. In Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Bruck, A., Fox, R. & La, Galy M. (eds), Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 43–80.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (MS). Late Middle Chinese sibilants: relative chronology vs. rule order.Google Scholar
Chen, M. & Wang, W. (1975). Sound change: actuation and implementation. Lg 51. 255–281.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1967). Some general properties of phonological rules. Lg 43. 102–128.Google Scholar
Conway, R. S. (1887). Verner's law in Italy: an essay in the history of the Indo-European sibilants. London: Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Espinosa, A. (1946). Estudios sobre el espanol de Nuevo Méjico, traducción, reelaboración y notas de A. Rosenblat. Buenos Aires: University of Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
FPCK (1958). (collective work). Hàn-yû fang-yin de jî-ge wèn-ti [Issues in Chinese dialectology]. Fang-yán yû Pû-tong-hùa Cóng-kan. I. 148–174.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reprinted in Fodor, J. & Katz, J. (eds), The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964. 334–352. (Cited from the 1964 version.)Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1973). On the order of certain phonological rules in Spanish. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 59–76.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, M. (1965). Phonology of Ancient Chinese (Ohio State University dissertation). 2 vols. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. Aspects of natural generative phonology (Dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Hu, Sh-B. (1959) Shan-xi Wén-shuî-huà hé pû-tong-huà yû-yin yû-huî de bî-jiâo [A phonological and lexical comparison between Wén-shuî and Standard Mandarin]. Fang-yán yû Pû-tong-huà Ji-kan 7. 21–39.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. (1972). A phonological Study of Fe?fe?–Bamileke (Studies in African linguistics, Supplement 4). Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Reprinted inGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R., Selected writings, Vol. 1,2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. 328–401.Google Scholar
Jāschke, H. A. (1934) A Tibetan–English dictionary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Karlgren, B. (1915–1926). Études sur la phonologic chinoise. Leyden: Brill/Stockholm:Google Scholar
Norstedt, P. A. & Soner, . Reworked and translated into Chinese as Zhong-guó Yin-yùn- xuè Ydn-jiu by Chao, Y. R., Li, F. K. & Lo, C. P. [= Luo, Ch-P.]. 2nd ed. Taipei: Commercial Press, 1966. (Page references to the Chinese edition.)Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (MS). On the application of rules in pre-generative phonology. Indiana University Linguistics Club,1973.Google Scholar
King, R. (1969). Push chains and drag chains. Glossa 3. 3–21.Google Scholar
King, R.Rule insertion. Lg 49. 551–578.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science. College Park: University of Maryland. 576–649.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). Phonological representation. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: Institute for Advanced Studies of Language. 1–136.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G. & Noll, C.The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Lalou, M. (1950). Manuel élénentaire de tibétain classique. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Liao, C. C. (1973). Relative chronology: a case study of the Peking dialect (Monthly Internal Memorandum, 10 1973). Berkeley: Phonology Laboratory, University of California. 22–27.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, J. & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems:the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839–862.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. & Sundberg, J. (1969). Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw and larynx movement. JASA 50. 1166–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, C-P. [= Lo, C. P.]. (1930). Yé-su-hui-shi zài yùn-xué shàng de gòng-xiàn [Contributions of Jesuit missionaries to (Chinese) phonology]. Academia Sinica: Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology i. 267–338.Google Scholar
Luo, C-P.(1933) Tdng, Wû-dài Xi-bèi Fang-yin [The northwestern dialects of Táng and the Five Dynasties]. Shanghai: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1966). Quelques fausses applications de Ia ‘loi de Verner’ aux faits romans. CFS 23. 75–87.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1968). Essays on linguistic themes. (Language and style 6.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1955). Économic des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1890). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, Vol. I: Romanische Lautlehre. Leipzig: Fues's Verlag, R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1971). Ordering paradoxes in phonology. JL 7. 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, B. (1972). Interdigitation in French phonology. Language sciences 19. 41–43.Google Scholar
Peking University (1962) [= Zihul]. Hàn-yû Fang-yin Zi-hui [A comparative pronouncing dictionary of Chinese dialects]. Peking: Wén-zì Gâi-gé Chu-bân-shé.Google Scholar
Peking University (1964). Hàn-yû Fang-yin Cí-huì [A comparative lexicon of Chinese dialects]. Peking: Wén-zì Gâi-gé Chu-bân-shè.Google Scholar
Pulleybank, E. G. (1968). The rhyming categories of Li Ho [= Li He]. The Tsing-hua journal of Chinese studies 7. 1–25.Google Scholar
Pulleybank, E. G. (1970-1971). Late Middle Chinese. Asia Major 15. 197–239; 16. 121–168.Google Scholar
Pulleybank, E. G. (MS). Linguistic evidence for the date of Hán-shan.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1972). Free variation isn't symmetric, either. IJAL 38. 268–270.Google Scholar
Richter, E. (1934). Chronologische Phonetik des Franösischen bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. (ZRPh. Beiheft 82). Halle.Google Scholar
Rochet, B. (1970) The development of the nasal vowel system in French. (Dissertation). University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Schane, S. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sedlak, P. (1969). Typological considerations of vowel quality systems. Working papers on language universals I. 1–40.Google Scholar
Shao, R-F. (1963). Dun-huáng sú, wén-xué zhong de blé-zì yì-wén hé Táng, Wû-dài xi-bêi fang-yin [The deviant graphs in the popular literature of Dun-huáng and the Northwestern dialects of Téng and the Five Dynasties]. Zhong-guó Yû-wén 124. 193–217.Google Scholar
Stolz, F. (1894). Zur Chronologie der lateinischen Lautgesetze. IF 4. 233–240.Google Scholar
Straka, G. (1955). Remarques sur les voyelles nasales, leur origine et leur évolution en français. RLR 19. 245–274.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Voyles, J. B. (1967). Simplicity, ordered rules, and the first sound shift. Lg 43. 636–660.Google Scholar
Wang, L. (1958). Hàn-yź Shi Gྱo [A History of the Chinese Language]. Peking: Ke-xué Chu-bྱn-shè.Google Scholar
Wang, W. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Lg 44. 9–25.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Herzog, M. & Labov, W. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–185.Google Scholar
Xing, M. (1972). GǠ-dài Zàng-yǠ hé Zhong-gǠ Hàn-yǠ YǠ-yin Xì-tong de Bí-jiᾰo Yán-jiu [A comparative study of the phonological systems of Classical Tibetan and Middle Chinese] (Dissertation). Taipei: National Normal University.Google Scholar
Yang, F. (1972). Shan-dong fang-yin biàn-zhèng jῠ-lì [On correcting the pronunciation of Shan-dong dialects]. Fang-yán yῠ Pῠ-tong-hùa.jí-kan 6. 1–13.Google Scholar
Yue, Zh. (1958). Jin-huá fang-yin yῠ Běi-jing yῠ-yin de duì-zhào [Correspondences between the Jin-huá and Peking pronunciations]. Fang-yán yῠ Pῠ-tong-hùa- Jí-kan 5. 25–98.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y-T. (1957). Děng-yùn Yuán-liú [The origin and evolution of Chinese phonology]. Shanghai: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Zheng, Z-F. (1966). Hàn-yῠ yin-yún-shi de fen-qí wèn-tí [Issues in the periodization of the history of Chinese phonology]. Academia Sinica: Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 36. 635–648.Google Scholar
Zhou, F-G. [= Chou, F. K.] (1968). Zhong-guó Yῠ-yán-xué Lùn-wén-jí [Essays on Chinese Linguistics]. Hong Kong: Chung-chi College.Google Scholar