Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:38:29.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the theory of Lexical Phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Ellen M. Kaisse  and
Patricia A. Shaw
Ellen M. Kaisse
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Patricia A. Shaw
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The theory of Lexical Phonology, which forms one of the themes of this volume, was developed by Paul Kiparsky and K. P. Mohanan and first introduced in monographs appearing in the early 1980s (Kiparsky 1982a, b; Mohanan 1982). The number of phonologists that have begun to work within or in response to the theory in the short time since its appearance is worthy of remark. One reason that Lexical Phonology has sparked so much interest must surely be that it supplies new tools for analysis and new ways of approaching recalcitrant problems. But another part of its appeal lies in the way it comes as a natural outgrowth of and response to so many of the major trends in phonology and morphology in the last 15 years. Our purpose in writing this introduction is to trace the history of some ideas that come together in Lexical Phonology and to provide the reader with an overview of the model itself. In this we shall be covering some already well-trodden ground, for Kiparsky, Mohanan, and many of their colleagues and students have included eloquent introductions to Lexical Phonology within their articles. However, we trust that readers of the Phonology Yearbook will find it useful to have in hand an exposition of the different facets of the model and the recent challenges and modifications it has undergone. And while our intentions are more pedagogical than critical, we shall from time to time point out difficulties inherent in some or all versions of the model.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael (1974). The cycle in phonology: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. LI 5, 39–60.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan & Miller, George A. (eds.) Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.1–59.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn.184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, Samuel J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, Bezalel E. (1983). Postlexical phonology in Tiberian Hebrew. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. 67–78.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Lg 47. 27–54.Google Scholar
Fujimura, O. (ed.) (1973). Three dimensions in linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan & Nykiel, Barbara (1979). Loan words and abstract phonotactic constraints. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 24. 71–93.Google Scholar
Kean, Mary-Louise (1974). The strict cycle in phonology. LI 5. 179–203.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). How abstract is phonology? Indiana University Linguistics Club. Also in Fujimura (1973). 5–56.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973a). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura (1973). 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973b). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–442.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982a). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982b). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1983). Word formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas. 3–29.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). The role of quantity in Finnish and English metres. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald & Noll, Craig (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. I: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Liu, Feng-hsi (1980). Mandarin tone sandhi: a case of interaction between syntax and phonology. Paper presented at the summer meeting of Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. & Mohanan, Tara (1984). Lexical Phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. LI 15. 575–602.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas (1983). Tone in Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas (1985). Phrasal morphology in Yoruba. Papers from the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Pyle, Charles (1972). On eliminating BM's. CLS 8. 516–532.Google Scholar
Rotenberg, Joel (1978). The syntax of phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1971). The phoneme revisited. Lg 47. 503–521.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A. (1980). Theoretical issues in Dakota phonology and morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. (1973). Reduplication and rule order. CLS 9. 679–687.Google Scholar