Two Cases of Exceptional Rule Ordering

1973 ◽  
pp. 141-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
François Dell
Keyword(s):  
Rule Ordering

Reduplication and Rule Ordering in Luiseño

1973 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Munro ◽  
Peter John Benson
Keyword(s):  
Rule Ordering

Rule-ordering in child phonology

1974 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary W. Salus ◽  
Peter H. Salus
Keyword(s):  
Child Language ◽  
Natural Processes ◽  
Specific Order ◽  
Stratified Structure ◽  
Rule Ordering ◽  
Phonological Rules

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.

A rule ordering paradox in Hare

1980 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keren Rice
Keyword(s):  
River Valley ◽  
Vowel Raising ◽  
Original Rule ◽  
Rule Ordering ◽  
Mackenzie River

Recent changes in Hare, an Athapaskan language of the lower Mackenzie River Valley, require that a rule of epenthesis be ordered in two places in the grammar. The original rule is ordered before a rule of vowel raising. In the innovative dialect of Hare, part of the environment for this epenthesis rule is revised and it must be ordered after the raising rule.

Canadian Raising, Opacity, and Rephonemicization

2006 ◽  
Vol 51 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Idsardi
Keyword(s):  
Considerable Importance ◽  
Language Games ◽  
Vowel Quality ◽  
Phonological Process ◽  
Rule Ordering

AbstractCanadian Raising—the phonetic changes in vowel quality and quantity in the diphthongs /ai/ and/ au/ before voiceless consonants—has been of considerable importance to phonological theories ever since Joos (1975). The opaque interaction of Canadian Raising and flapping in words such as writer consitutes one of the main arguments for rule ordering in phonology (Chomsky and Halle 1968; Chambers 1975). Recently, Mielke, Armstrong, and Hume (2003) have challenged Joos’s phonemic splitting analysis and have argued that Canadian Raising, rather than being a productive phonological process, is a static lexicalized generalization implemented as a choice between allomorphic variants. A rebuttal to this allomorphic analysis is offered based on evidence that, for some speakers, Canadian Raising productively applies in novel morphological contexts, in language games, and in the phrasal phonology, none of which are amenable to an allomorphic analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document