Dissertation on Natural Phonology

A Dissertation on Natural Phonology

David Stampe

ED Garland

Publishing,

Inc. • New York & London 1979

CONTENTS

Preface

Library

of Congress

Stampe, David, A dissertation

Cataloging

1938on natural

in Publication

Data

The

v

Acquisition

o

A Dissertation

on

Phonetic ' c Representation Natural

Vii

Phonology

xxvi

phonology.

(Outstanding dissertations in linguistics ; 22) Originally presented as the author's thesis, University of Chicago, 1973. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general-Phonology. 2. Psycholinguistics. 3. Language acquisition. I. Title. II. Series. P217.3.57 1979 414 78-66538 ISBN 0-8240-9674-6

Chapter

T:

The

Nature

and

Chapter

II:

The

Organization

Function of

References

Process

Processes

1 43 11

Afterthoughts Additional

of

75 References

84

Q 1979 David Stampe All rights reserved

All volumes

in this series are printed on acid-free, 250-year-life paper. Printed in the United States of America

sss

PREFACE The minor

present

edition

corrections

submitted

to

in December 1972

but

of my dissertation without

the

University

1973.

The

version

distributed

pagination

changes,

Chicago

Department

of

latter

has

was slightly

under

the

title

been

retyped,

from

the

with version

of Linguistics

abridged

from

How I Spent

a September

my Sunrmer

Vacation. The 1969

paper

Regional

reprinted the

readers

The added

Meeting

here

the

exhaustive.

Phonetic

Chicago

minor

Representation,

Linguistic

Society,

corrections

the

from is

as a convenience

discussion

in

the

to

dissertation

paper.

here changes For

o

the

much of

dissertation

some

subsequent

of

againwith

because

presupposes

o

The Acquisition

was originally as

'Afterthoughts, in

details

Natural

Phonology,

"Additional

References"

the

' mostly

theory. the

a 1979 that

without

reader

These

footnotes. to

are

explain

not

by Donegan

furnishes

some

intended

may be directed

paper

I have

and me (see survey

work.

Columbus

1

be

to The Study

a general

July

to

1979

Ohio

of

recent

`~ i

vii

THE ACQUISITION

Since o

natural

1965

phonology,

system

of

ience.

since

this

report

is

to

more

into

that

restrictions tically

fall

the

into

restrictions.

by

voicing,

talks

have

some

by

example

between

the

be

voiceless

contradictions The

contradictor

and are

most

of

not

on a theory

the an

ways

of

Phonological innate

by

been of

system

of

linguistic

exper-

published,

I have

those

speech

talks

rather

which

sets,

oral

other

reflecting

voiceless

than

voiced.

tries

become

these

are

characteris-

voiced

required

in

voiced

overlap,

an ways

their

airflow

processes

three

phonetic of

the

a contradiction: There

the

irrespective

they

Where

opposi-

conflicting

impedes

hand

is

least Processes

constriction

there

Phonological

capacity.

become

the

a potential

opposition

"assimilation." vowels

residue

highlights

merges

human

on

Society

work.

of

their

while

environments

.

certain

contradictory

because

both

in

Obstruents

context,

the

that

revised

process

of

REPBESENTATION*

assumption the

recent

member

to

largely

review

A Phonological tion

the

my Previous

year on

reporting

on

processes, But

chosen

been

based

a language

phonological

to

I have

OF PHONETIC

for

abstruent bY which

cannot such

resolved.

radical

rocesses.

resolution

is

The master

by

suppression

of

one

of voiced

obstruents

of

the

in all

Papers from the Fifth Regiona7 Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Robert I inni. B ck Alice Davisan Georgia Green and Jerry L. Morgan. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Linguistics, istics, 1969. Pp. 443-454. (Reprinted with permission of the Chicago Linguistic Society.)

.

f

viii contexts

entails

above,

with

contexts The

the

a

resulting

except

those

second

resolution

Process---limiting contexts and is

applies

strict

obstruents, because

tense may

vowels,

example.

clearly

are

not

For

role.

many

nairfi

of

between

low

voicing

aPP1Y

vowels Just

traditional

such

or

between

phonological which

lax

high

parameter

of

be

imposed,

ones.

but

their

latex

processes,

are

to

nasalized

Latin

and

Greek

(.gen.

o:s

Absorption

Greek

'nose'

from

ment-s

apply

after

original not

assibilation not

limit

there

the

innate

these

all:

the

ordered

application. this

can

obstruents

are

application

suppression manifest

of in

of in

Many

the either

ascribed

voiced the

the

be

voicing order.

to

effect

order process.

then s stem

a full

set

that

of

syllables

are

would

plified,

obstruents

But

merge

For example ,

the

utterances

become The

fullest

o f what

might

lax

could

could

not

not

aPP1Y to

of

Vnts

these

processes underwent

to

the

be assumed Latin

and

be called

the

only

caarticulad become

innate

system

Post-babbling"

reflect a

Process

state

unlimited

did

reflects

absorption

observable

the

was

can

li nguals of

but onlYto

Greek

processes

stops

the

h ima ; s ,Since

a innocent

clusters

effect

mans

the

xpresses thefullsystem of restrictions

usually

deleted,

form -

, whereas

y

are

Latin

himant-os

of

la ngua

phonol ogical

Greek

gen.

, iit

effect

its

and

of

processes

g

stressed

a ,

in

eP

processes

to

these the

extreme

process.

process

ordering-of

ical

speech:

of

anon

order

to yield

either

relationship

limitation--by

honolo

of

o,ss

absorption

it

to

gen .

assibilation

, the

simplified

'blood'

Thus

processes

nepo .ts

to

denasaliz

'thong'

absorption

The most

in certain

voicing

opposite

languages

then

is

and

changes

Both

, which

hr i ; s . As the

however

himant-s

. Latin

shows

s

which

o , •t- os

subsequent

the

before

changed

san9uin-s

from

Greeks

s

spirants

en, (g en.

ment-is

resulted

In

and

"sonority"

but

,

(by

to

absorption

nePo:ss

on in Latin.

which

at

before

Latin

(gen.

assibilati

limited

vowel

nr in-osjto

'mind'

Vns

as

'ear'

s

(gen. .[

sequence

to here

to

o:t-s

san9ui

t

Assibilation

changed

to

hrin-s

changing

neP o:t-is

, and

.

refer

nasal

I assume

application

from

in

process

I will

nePo:s

Vns

vowels

limitations

may

plus

'grandson'

discussion.

the

nrrneesses

suppressed,

limited

obstruents

indistinguishable

tense

be

in

of

altogether

to

may

opposition

pair

limited

which

sanguin-is

the

process

by

this

of

final

is

by

which

and

resolution

contexts

subtle

initial

third

process)

various

or

limitations this

of

contexts,

to

Besides

set

generality

may be

non-high

the

applied

the

suppression

is

of

a

an assibilation

a process vowel

than

to

devoicing

voiced

example

greatest

it

the

limited

are

is

them.

voicing

between

be

or

..

to

Likewise

not

part

all

there

favorable

relevant

a voicing

the

be

a

less

vowels

the

unless

to

process

process

voiceless

nonPhonological

The lack

ones

some

applies

complete

lax are

this

the

devoicing

forth.

may In

plays also

so

from

in

merges

of

each

mentioned

obstruents

process

it

in

process

in

suppression

the

to

voice

segments

to

devoicing

voicing

Implicit

to

limited

it

by

ranging

between but

are

in.

not

and

contexts

for

of

obstruents

be

positions, to

set

example, but

the

is

the of

which

motivated, For

it

in

hierarchies

phonetically

of

opposition

the

it

process.

Or

suppression

ix

and in

.1 innate

of unordered

infancy:unons are

coronal is

simvowels

seen period

in ,

.

.

xi

x which sist

although of

y are

still

well-articulated

nonsemantic,

sequences

of

characteristically

identical

and

stressed

lables a

mamama

that

the

or

stop

the

may

vowel

the

mayY or

may not

be

and

forth.

The

so

antes

in

these

vowel

Each

or

mayor Yor

structure,

with

like

Even

this

early

may

not

be

voiced

may

not

be

fronted

palatalized,

nasals

semantic

indeed words

by

resemble they are

is

some

assimilation

by

a

may or

f

e, first and

ere

cotonal,

may not

this

the plusstandard, ~a-lables composed of lax stop or nasal lowvowel:

but

this

words

post-babbling

often

dust

continuations

And in

of d

imPort.3

new phonetic

opposition

the

child

1earns._.~. ~..~~~pronounce t .o ~~

This

the

the

in

the

German

example

of

hunt

the

the

of

German

is

hund

of

but

all

has

.

as

In

well

obstruents.

morpheme-final

system

face

shows

representations

lack

to

permits

representation

in morpheme-final

example, in

flies

phonetic

children

to conform

because

Phonological

stays

is

As the

opposition

for

process

not,

representation

voicing

claim

pronunciation need

only

which

English-speaking

'dog/dogs'.

governs

no

the

tation.

in-

-

is

languages

altogether,

hunda

P honoloica1 g it

there

their

children

governs

languages

in case

utter-

process the

obstruents. if

German hunt

since

other

be denasalized,

word-final process

devoicing

devoxcxng

the

a coronal

these

of

suppress

freedom, to

acquisition

must

syl-

dadada

a a in

the

con-

consonants

no overt

phonological

manifes-

theories

n-

lvessomerevision the resolve

of

mechanisms

the

innate

of that this

contradictions

phonologrcal

revision

between

are

the

processes:

system. same

as

It those

suppression,

such

which

if

limitation, Pronunciation Thechild..s task

as from

the

standard.

e equivalent In those has

the

view of

the

survive

determine

obstruents is

innate

are what

For

not

then

only

the which

mature the

learned.

there

a limited

in

which

is

usually

of

governing

are

of

manifests

the

order

itself

unmo-

at

child

words all,

me that attested

with are

language

in which tophonetic h'sp

convinced

appears as

in

they

imply

g upon

whereby that

Jakobson

word-final

immediately

foreign

pronounced

mechanisms

which

devoicin

to be supported

seem

to

final

by the

pronunciation,

voiced

obstruents,

characteristically

have

noted

striking

mastered.

regularities

can be

fully

properties

of

the

innate

Ystern is

there

is

no need

1940

proposed,

since

result

entirely

from

to

for

example,

the

spirants

and

spirants

imply

to

to the the

imPlicational sto Ps

by

processes, three inner their hierarchies and

In particular,

"imPlicetional extent

innate

explained

by the

revised.

refer

in

My studies

system-its

interrelations--and

the

Consider,

innate

which,

regularities

are

these

in

devozced.

representations

their

pronunciation

pronounceable

process

of

appears

all

phonetically

devoicing

it

Students k in uiring acq: _adultof

have

must

retains

The processes

a process

version

system

mastery

representations

(presumably

system

but

independently

those: . rules

certainly phonetic

resultant

me

theyY ar are

the

speakers. b

system

example,

general)

ful 1Y,. the

of standard

(But

alternations

obstruen

that

intact.

language.

he succeeds

to

languages,

is and ordering.

onunciation revise :.. _.„~.....~_,.. „r .~. the~_~s ~.~ stem s__......~,.._.~..._P which se ara .. all to

I am proposing,

tivated

the

of I If

to

aspects left

ects

known

appears vo

it s

laws,"

that

these

such

are

valid

system. laws

Jakobson processes

that 51,

affricates 55).

There

affecting to be seem onlytwogeneral, context-free

.

i xiii

xii obstruent ited

articulations:

to

these

affricates

the

are

tion

laws

it

can

and

A similar

thereby

which

be seen

ordering

result

these

account

mechanisms

can

am aware.

be

given

for

spirants.

that

which

in a different

conform

to

all

imPlicational

the

the

is

laws

no

of P

less

general

processes

implicational

b Y the these

contradictions

is P 1 i ca txonal

contradictions

to

laws.

the

, tory

example,

context for

neutralize

if

there

-sensitive phonemic

was

processes

cannot

oppositions

laws

But

in

be ignored,

certain

In

words

there

laws

cannot

even

account

for

the

other

imPlicational

has

but

only

for

the

phonemic

inventory,

which

form

terms

treat palatal affricates

as

the

contradic-stops

for

they

to

abundant

contradictory

Processes

and

to

resolve

to suppression,

the

notion

still

the

the

contra-

limitation,

and or-

then

innate

be no difference

processes,

which

between is

just

what

system

support

speech.

of as

own

child's

Since

this

claim

child's

Phonological

assumed from

that

no evidence There

that

the

is

is

on the

to some

to from

sort

his has

other

closely

essential result

of

whatsoever

representations

productions system

have

distinct

assumption. the

tion

innate

his

that

the

the

phonology

I am aware

this

am proposing-that of

child

the the

con-

theory applica-

of Phonological

Phonetic

is

concerns

appropriate

and

representation.

Most

child

has

internalized

cends

in

detail

his

I

think,

comes

examine major

to digress

briefly

some evidence works

on child

a representation own reduced

of

this

language

of

adult

productions.

from

strictly

Phonological agree

that

speech

which

The most

striking

the transevi-

the when a child

masters

a phonological

opposition

rePresenta-

unaffected

had

merged.

in precisely

the

From

that

moment he pronounces

the

new

by appropriate

morphemes,

without

rehearing

neutralizations. them

im licational

laws

since

theory,

as

if

the

processes

are

taken

is

possible

as

the

the

I am proposing,

resentations

as

well

it as

inventories,

and

the

old

substitute

does

not

reappear

again.b

Unless,

of

primicourse

tives Lives of

of

evidence

to adult

segment contextual

we extended

would

the

So far

representation-it

may

Therefore

phonemic is

and

students

language.

he previously Lion P

laws

a phonemic

advanced

dence, im licational

if

be contradictory,

dering.

hand

in

contexts.

Even

to ignore

imp licational

no contrast.

the

to appeal

been

acquisition

could phonemic representation, of

for

have

standard

or

Ja predicted kobson was able

by interpreting which

of

themselves

Mostmodern

context-sensitive palatal andevenvelar stops, splrantizing

the apply order

allow

we would

of

processes affricatln g stops before high them after vowels for example. As might be expected, if these may arise

to

level.

I am arguing.

laws.

laws

affricating and

there

would

child are

law

every

dictions

the

representa-

5

t there

at

violate order

of

representations

imPlicational

If

there

could

levels

about

may be lim-

become

"intermediate" by

However,

stops

readily or

I

permitted

I

and affricates

limitation,

im licational

which

stops)

innate,

suppression,

acquisition.

become

become

processes

possible

obstruents

his

mastery

is

only

conditional,

so that

the

process

remains

to make preand in

fact rations

about reA

optional.

But

even

in this

case

the variation

between

the

new and

I

.

x iv old segment

will

guage have the

k

arise

at

I have the

first,

result

apparent.

fantile

process

word

so that

change

that

in favor

at

the

whose presence

in question,

makes coronals earlier

first

appearance

of velars

Gag Herr

Goka,

presumably

evidence

against before

son had a process

pronounced

like

now ing, one are

cite

common

at

some

while

the

having but

from

ordered clear

two examples

of

innate

processes a child

which

another

actually

do').

LeoPold

1947:

bat

dered

application

was

after

LeoPold

voiced

Performing

has

suppressed

the

order-

lel

at

not the

pplication

everythin

p

flapping

the unor-

Velten

of

n

b

changing •

nn

k~ni

a

1943)

.8

flap-dele-

of 'candy'

became

g after

ons of both

His pronunciation

'candy'

ob-

But the only

bap , with

End] to

of the

word-final

'spoon').

a

dud u

.

Later

steps,

Pu: bu months

of limitation o bstruents

only between

I will

of

f zcation

a

a

and then a

d ut

nd

was at nn

by ord

to

ering

n b

(a).9

and later

Examples

b

months

compare

n

which met the conditi

m into

20

am

processes

had bee

, had been pronounced

making

at

ore vowel

devozced

bud

I

, beside

and then denasalzzed

acquired

k~i , b y processes before

bef

by unordered

,

owever

of the

+ch0o-choor

bub'broom'

'lamb'

and desyllabi

Examples

assimilated

application

My son John had k~r,~~} ' Channin g+ by

applied

'Joey'

obstr uent voices

bite'

consonant

processes,

upon the

child

'bad

H

LeoPold

do:i

At 22 months Joan Velten

these

first

'dog'

'June'

268 and 1939: 126

ward she had previously

the

b

literature

, Hildegand

But at 19 months

did

support

the

example

du

and

a non-nasal

Guken

in

r choo-chop'bY

in the

phonological

the

d

find

For

'juice',

d ud u

'to

tion,

illustrating

processes.

,

struents

in-

unchan g e d

speech

[du(t)j'}

to

cases.

same processes.

Jakobson's

representation,

few

du

which

Far from being

being

a

becomes

as

then

so that

of

difficult

t1

of

is clearly

actually

Immediately

phonetic

children's

of

stops,

remained of

[9o9].

represented

[9a], the coronal

'doll'

suppression

kaek and

and

Tag, Herr Doktor'.

da

became

tat

Duten Ta Herr Dotta

final

as

occurs

aware

'church'

kt

is the

are

said

that

was not pre-

a velar

them, such cases

acquisition

examples and

f irat,

says

of this

from NadolecznY,

mentally

deleting

'dog'

velars to

limitation, child

'doll'

of velars

Returning

having

he can produce

claim.

to]

ordering

after

repression

culprit

pronounced

said

'Guten

child's

if

quoted

a child for

k

must be , explained

the

velar

and 'dog',

analysis:

of

the cases

process

to this

deleted

But all

'cat'

the

by a hypercorrect

in fact

In the case

lan-

in the use of both phonemes

can be

subject

to the

coronal,

(54).

of such a hYPercorrection,

acquisition

makes linguals

of [k]"

example

oppositions

emergence

caused

literature

which

the

those

of some additional

viously

discussing

, mistakes

especially

in the

in morphemes which in the adult

Jakobson,

appears

t

seen

only

of the process

finally

expected

place

former,

suppression

"when

the

the

take

xv

'paper between

The denasaliza

people, Papu tion

much easier

before voiced

process 25 months

are

Papa

voiced

segments

'guppy'

process

segments Pab a

LeoPold 1947:

Joan Velten purple'

t o find .

and and

first

Pabu

in herspeech

baba bef

31

'pa

pa')

ore she finally

B y exactly

distinguished

bu.bu

Hildegand

Paral-

between

'baby' , and then at 27

'probably' , mentioned

Velte above

n 290). was

t

i

xvli

xvi limited

to

nonf

inal

positions

before

being

suppressed:

sa:bud

PassY believed 'salmon'

becomes

sa•bun

and

finally

sa:mun

291

.

Chao's

tion, daughter,

learning

Mandarin

at

first

palatalized

all

coronals

this

to continuant

coronals

by children,

h -deletion

process,

successively

limited

stress

until

he

dropped

only

before

in

context-free

attained

my son's

the

in

speech

standard

completely

of the speech

explains

its

most

general

from "imperfect

imita-

of adults"

1890:

225.

This

why, except

in borrowing,

phonetic

change does not

to

formal

stressless

syllables

of

with

This

It

also

explains,

as the Neogrammarian

view

change

as due to subconscious

drifts

of pronunciation

does

decreasing

pronunciation

syllables.

in adults.

form

of phonetic was

change arises

Chao 1951: 29f))-0 seem to occur

'~ e

phonetic

and

hypothesis

hen limited

that

grand-

is

not,

how change

might be quite

that

children's

deformations

radical.

And finally,

to the extent

h

of adult

speech

are

regular,

it explains

a condi-

certain Phonetic change why is regular. If thec tional PPed limitation

even

in the

standard

at

least

in

my dialect

and

so

sound, it

may apply

to

increasingly

stressed

syllables

in

increasingly

it will

substituted speech

his

henhouse'is

example

illustrates,

Process

governs

henhouse

'is

hen'ouse>

'is

appear

'en'ouse

.

The

of

a

for

the

way the

inner

hierarchy

ing. not

only

its

form

a

violation

but

its

application; lication•

Phonetic

requiring

of

the

hierarchy

(e.g.

it

to the

sound he regularly

A Phonetic

^in readily change

be expressed

occurs

by the

when the child

theory

fails

I am propos-

to suppress

some

repre-

innate sentations

he has changed

it.-

This account incidentally,

that

Y relaxed FP a

enhouse~

process P

which

does not

aPP1Y in the

standard

language.

Thus if

do not

an American

child

obstruents,

for

fails

to suppress

the process

devoicing

word-final

occur.

As an example

of suppression,

I will

"u

cite

just

will exhibit w111 as pronounced

by a two-year

old boy in successive

his

speech-compared

to the adult

standard-

the word 'kitty'

interviews.

~ pronunciation changed fromki:

a phonetic example, change

corresponding

to the

"addition"

of a

His kii

to k i

to kL i

devoicin.g process to kLr i to

to the phonology.

This change

has in fact

occurred

gical many dialects in of EngT kLtib

suppression

of the processes

of prevocalic

tensrepresentations

ing, ingt

PostsY11ab1c Y successivedesYllabification

, flap-deletion,

and flapping

those boy's

parents

speak

a dialect

with unf1a PPed

t

It

a child

to manifest

all

the

intermediate

steps

0f later

between

his

pronunciations

of a form

My son's

the

pronunciation

of this

direct)

sate

that

Y from

ki:to

he suppressed

[kin].i all

This does not necessarily

the processes

at once

since

indi-

suppression

first

(flap-deletion)

would have resulted

generations

original

if

there

in the same abrupt

representations.

earlier vowels

respectively, of [b€: t].

the

nor would it affect

remained

any phonological

support

In the dialects

in question,

'bet'

bet

and

be•] d b

the

standard

process

making Y

word stressed

went

of course,

first and 'bed'

and last

originators,

is extraordinar extraordinary for

for

of its

the

change.

long are

still

or short

before

distinguished

voiced

or voiceless

by vowel length

segments, as

bet

and

,

I

xix

xviii adjustment these

before

can

be

seen

Velten

at

length

adjustment

first

tinguished ordering

devoicin$

and

before

most of the

gradually

admitted changes

often

have

admitted

more conservative must not

which

imagine

admit it

first

optional

sions

are

sa Y the

essentially

the

exemplified

devoicIng

standard

standard

has "generalized"

itself are

forces

speech. there

are

changes

many others

speech.

We

Even those that

in the isoglosses

at

the child's

progres-

of change-we

might

dialects

in the opposite dialects

it be ordered

order

in

which have

with respect

to

was relaxed in

to the form compatible

it will will

appear that he therefore

con-

change will proceed in from the child's

limita-

are optional

ones, as in the

They are sometimes even reflected dialect.

Ideally,

the

have admitted a process in its most general form, and isogloss

enforced,

at the outermost

rarely

of

assume the form of hierarchies

an innovating

each successive

marks an additional isogloss

The classic

limitation

we encounter

the process in any form.

encountered.

Of course

example involves

which has been dialects the ideal

the isoglosses

which is of the

"~~ Rhenish Fan ," on the boundary between High and Low German)13 -3 have dwelt on phonetic change at some length because the account of phonetic

to ordered

regularly

cited above.

surrounding

have not admitted

means thatY optional the oY are

process

in the process; rocess•

if the generalizations

until

anent-s

along these hierarchies

example of [h]-deletion

innermost

mens

Latin ordering

The generalization

implicit

of applicability

are characteris-

from unordered

appears

the process.

is

the dia-

as in

and to the extent he fails

These hierarchies

Beside

has the same length whether it repre-

a Phonological

tion of it.

innovator

unor-

n was absorbed here as well.l2

only

language.

in the child

absorption,

direction

the

in admitting

bund . The conservative

the opposite

by

than obligatory

only in relaxed

progression

required

with the standard

bunt

or

must limit

to the

rather

to t he tendencies

P phonetic change. have

exerts

On the contrary,

opposite

is why wh the typical

corresponding

admitted

speech.

regressions-of

This application

in child

after

The child

Thus it

before thethey fact become that phonetic obligatory

bunt

form to the hierarchies

standard

p

so that

popular Latin so that

by

at first.

devoicing,

that

tically

the

still

289),

Innovations

as optional

obligatory

the

German has gone a step further

underlying

assibilation

process.

•n hxs formal

which

processes,

she attains

conditionally

to suppress lects

to these

of the

sents

with

Thus her phonological

of children.

The conservatism

bat

adjustment.

dered application,

Joan

Velten

of the standard

begin

length

of

then at 24 months dis-

the devoicing

of ten just

as

respectively

regard

innovations

example,

alike

devoicing.

influence

application

For

and 'bad'

Three weeks later

rejecting

pronunciations.

children.

b a, t

by suppressing

phonetic

unordered

devoicing,

identical, 1, with

The conservative

that

of

after

as [bat]

above.

innate,

'back'

adjustment

cited

pronunciation

speech

applying

these

becomes

dialects

the

pronounced

length

system

in

The

acquisition

presented

here appears to explain

currently

known mechanisms of regular phonetic

addition

generalization,

child's

failure

of the innate

and unorderin

respectively,

of processes

to suppress,

system to the extent

change.

limit,

fully

all

the

The apparent arise

in the .

g

or order processes

required by the standard tanguage.

14

I1

f

i

~°

I

xx

xxi t

i

1 i

In

other

in

some

words, or

must

refer

ited

to

the

all

child

simply

contexts.

to

the

This

innate

understand

fails is

system

the

really

and

precise

to master all

the

nature

a phonetic

that

is

mechanisms

and

the

opposition

involved.

by which

regularity

But it

is

NOTES 1 The Greek

we

lim-

of phonetic F

change. The theory tions

outlined

acquisition And

i i. ~,

finally,

it

much

acquisition

can be

change can

observed

in

the

here and

Jakobson but

of

extended

for

the

Phonological

detail

than

change

of

representations

StamPa

regularities

systems

of

Jakobson's

for

the

theory,

the

as 4

languages

which

was

limited

Ei, ~;

i~ ,, ~~ ~~ i

)just

to

a subset

ness

theory

of

of

Phonological

ChomskY and Halle

approximately

the

theories

limited

were

context-free

same

1968:

set

of

processes.

just

to

the

processes.

chapter

9

most

The marked-

was limited

As a result underlying

both

levels

tion,

which

are

relatively,

though

not

entirely,

undisturbed

by

the

re-

,~

maining ,,i

the

processes.

theory

account ~~

such

outlined

for

all

theories

stantive,

in

Phonological gering standing

i

An important here

levels as

the

task of

must

can

present

is

that

succeed

instance It

confront

phonology.

then

of Phonological

these

system.

difference

becomes any

between the

latter

is

insofar

increasingly attempt

and to

Of course

as

by a description

theories

intended

representation. only

serious

those

they of

obvious

are

made sub-

the

innate

that

this

to advance

our

that

the

corre

ct forms would result if the processes applied sequentially and iterativel Y in random order. The notion "unordered" corresponds to the "unmarked ordering" of Kiparsky 1965 except that h I extend it, as noted, to include re-application. More on this below "Ordered" here corresponds t o KiParskY' s ~~marked ordering."

Post-babbling" utterances as defined here, are guished from the unstructured, random vocalizations of which significantly, is essentially alike in deaf and dren. Since the structure of post-babbling utterances for by the innate Phonological system, one might ufurther they are underlain by phonologic al representations, in haps as crude imitations of adult speech, prior to the its distinctions and semanticit y.

to be distintrue babbling, hearing chilcan be accounted speculate that some sense perrecognition of

representaI

'~

in

This crucial issue is discussed in Stampe (forthcoming), where it is contended that the problem of "phonological admissibility" is contained in and therefore inseparable from, the larger problem of loan phonology.

to

these of

unordered

1968).

such

world's

are

2However most of the processes mentioned in this paragraph make limited appearances, at least in some adult languages. For example, Vietnanese has lost Austroasiatic unstressed syllables, Oceanic has lost Austronesian consonant clusters etc. Such radical changes result from the collective effects of numerous specific processes.

representa-

way to account

imPlicational

can

phonetic

in a natural

of Phonological

account

in

finer

and

processes

stag-

under-

Conversely, it turns out that incorrect imPlicational laws like Jakobson's conjecture that spirants imply nasals Velten 1943: 282 fail to correspond to actual processes; in this instance, there is no general process changing non-nasal spirants to nasals. 6 The most notable exceptions to this generalization involve words which the parents have imitated When adults adopted my son' s Pibi for 'T.V.' by desPirantiz anon and labial "harmony"), this word persisted for months after he had suppressed these processes, even though he could pronounce tivi with ease Later after he adopted the standard form he still occasionally used Pibi i n bobYtalking. The most striking cases of "frozen speech" involve elder siblings, who occasionally adopt some stage of the speech of the younger, and continue it as a private language even after the younger sibli ng has attained standard pronunciation. Jakobson 1940 cites some references.) Such exceptions support, rather than refute the claim that the child's representations correspond to the productions of his models. In Yes Virginia... I argue that the child's representations must in fact be at least as deep as sentation" of adult speech, based on examples like

Phonological a "phonemic reprebAdn for adult

xxiii

xxii

bn?n cesses)

r

each of which from b nt n .

derives

by the application

of different

It is possible to avoid this result only by denying' of the two absorptions• but it was to express such KiParskY proposed the notion of change by reordering Place. For further examples of this sort, including plication, see StamPa (forthcoming).

pro-

With b for w for I (compare bibi for biwi for bL 'Bill' , reported to me by Ar lene Zide . The form bap persisted until the 27th month because it was adopted by the adults of the household Velten 282 note). Therefore the final [b] expected upon the ordering of denasali zation after devoicing at 22 months did not appear on schedule in this form. Compare note 6 above.

,.

ii

9The Further discussed

unordered

application

examples of in StamPa

survives

optional unordereng forthcoming.

, in

however, synchronic

in

allegro phonology

speech. are o 'a

10Since

I' i. i

allophonic

i

dude course

en

I i I

i I

~ I

~I

ii

II

i !~

i. i.

~

she

ordered

process

an

her

fronting

and

san

that her phonemic this conclusion

alatalization vowels

as

en

system has is necessary

process

after

the

Mandarin P

after pronouncing adult palatals, and [fun], Chao is forced to conmore vowels than the only if one insists

adult that

one. the

Of

13 It should be emphasized perhaps , that "generalization" as used in this discussion has little relation to its use in generative phonolo g ical theory, y, since t he latter is concerned not with innate processes but rather with rules which are "internalized" by the child to represent "significant generalizations" about his language . That the child supplements the innate h opological system with rules , particularly morphological and expressive ones is not at issue . But so little is known of such rules as yet that most recent speculations about constraints on them-such as the rotational and "markedness" conventions of Chomsky and Halle 1968: chapters 8 and 9-seem quite premature.

14 KiParskY 1968 also proposes change by suppressing processes of the standard language which he explains, along with generalization -:i phonological representations were a phonemic version of her own girl's j ~[ and reordering, as simplification of the grammar. He is thus unable pronunciations. t} s •:r to explain the addition of processes, whereas my proposal can explain addition generalization and ordering but not suppression. But t 11This view was applied by Jakobson 1940 to the phonemic level. t°. there are less than a half dozen clear cases o f change by suppression, The more recent proposal by Halle 1962 that change reflects the '# against innumerable cases of addition. r phonology, is not so limited, and re-addition of a process to the One of the clearest cases involves the suppression 0f the German flects our growing conviction that phonological processes are not mere ~` process devoicing word-final obstruents in certain Yiddish and descriptive devices but rather genuine i components of the mental gramnorthern Swiss dialects KiParskY 1968: ll1 That the process was 1F mar. But Halle's implication that adults might spontaneously add a ie suppressed seems certain but the cause appears not to have been general theory is difficult process to understand. Halle's is based "simplification" but rather a dile mmasoccasioned by the loss, in all :r all Phonologica 1 Processes are rules which are the on assumption that 'e these dialects of most word-final schwas. This introduced thousands constructed by the child to account for his linguistic experience, b cs of voiced obstruents into word-final position and, since the lost and that the phonological system is evaluated according d to the simschwas lacked clear morphological support, flatly contradicted the plicity of these rules so that (other thin things being g equal) the fewer devoicing process. Two resolutions were possible to children con, given this views why a rules thebetter. It,c is notat all clear fronting this situation. They could aPP1Y devoicing to the newly process should be added in the first place. s final obstruents and thus merge bunt and bund < banda : as [bunt]; or suppress it and keep [bunt] and bund distinct. Some dialects 12 On the basis of this Latin example it can be argued, contra ~~ took the former option and others, the ones KiParskY cites the latKiParskY (1968), that a process is not simply reordered but rather ter. What this suggests is that although suppression occurs under in this sort of change, because the absor process had unordered absorption certain circumstances it is not a primary mechanism of change. to PP1Y twice The first, and original, application san9uis since

phonemic'

that

of processes

which

En]-assimilation

any more than there

representation

expect

correspond

have assumed

(morphophonemic

_

words with

link

1968•~ Chapter

theories

redundancy

-'- En].

by the process

of accounting

variously

and

lint/

unspecified

have

it

In forms where no alternation

('Systematic

processes

roles since

~

are processes

has two voice-assimilation

N~' ~uue n, by children's

representations

between

these structure,

nuYen

representation

ChomskY & Halle

Phonological

representation morpheme

that

is

like

to believe

each role

The general

in foreign

e.g.

reason

there

is allophonic,

But there

have both roles

On the

representation

U mP

as underlYing1Y

. Neither

n

of

one

Iirlk , we would therefore

spelling.

theory

rlfor

each language.

one case,

m in English.

and so forth.

from underlying

above.

wn.keis

by assimilation.

representations

tioned

nasals

out

we have

boundaries:

is a morphophonemic

n

Tint

syllable or

substitution

from

IimP >

~, is barred

these

n

of

by this

point

across

underlying

be derived

underlying

of articulation

arises

ifrom l

e.g.

to the

ruling

it

Read 1971),

occurs

For example,

w,n.keis

substitution

is evidenced

which

the

the

in English.

is optional

Lm.bed

33

hwa ..i

wh~ than

whale retains

is sometimes lexical These hierarchic dialects.

segments

laugh,

hrin g

ones:

ring '

so that

(e.g.

older

and then before

hJ'

h but at onic

it has appeared

se gmeets

there

the process

ar

hew e dialects

In Fig. 1 are represented

four dialects

English

words are

in which

hwai why has lost

are ref 1ected

in,

more sonorant

Atonic

even restres sed why lacks

conditions

that

This proces s has had a dial ects

and eventually tonic

further

it.

This

Eh].

in modern English I have observed

~

34 personally;

the

application

obligatory

+ , optional

of [h]-deletion +

is indicated

or inapplicable

atonic /w

n s l br

35 as

In a theory

(- ).

representation

between

of lesser +

+

-

-

of greater

B

+

+

+

-

would be incapable

C

+

+

+

+

which lack

D

+

+

+

-

I-Fig. l.--[h]-deletion

in four

English

dialects

before

of generalization

of [h]-deletion

to the

least

susceptible

contexts

no doubt

that

we are

dealing

with

have

o f course

no trace

o f the

merged

hn, hl,

in these

of the

process

governs

h

a single

process.

hr] with

in alternations

lexical

n,

A deletion

alternants

like

representation.

is optional

before

hwai wai

why require

In dialect

B deletion

only

optional

in tonic

words;

in all

this

hw in their

process

in the case

of atonic

words

in these

governs

since

with

[h].

In dialect

C this

words

so that

whale

and wail,

general

with form,

1w!.

merging

In dialect the

lexical

there

ete

generalizations from C to D as represent

o f the process

(since , if

h

would be no reason superficial

coincidental

governin

does not occur

to posit

ation

developments.

g

before

an {h ]-deletion

representation).

But these

It is a single

Its

are not

process

that

distinct

roles

in lexical

representation

result

simply

from the fact

remain

when it

is obligatorily

and derived

are

reaches

that

n o Phonological

words of

h

• aration

of p rocesses

with

of the

theory

deleted

dual roles .

.

There is

11

of underlying

representation

Presente

is extended is

that

underlying

segments

are

ontologically

of

the

same

are

mental

identically its

as

any

segment

in

surface

representation

sounds

which

are

in

Particutar

the

most

of hue and you

representations •,. nounceable.

with

del

s

diachronic

underlying

here.

lexical

role

for example,

representations

loss

they exhibit

lexical

D the process

the

simultaneous

governing

simultaneous

governing

status

represented

dialect

but only optionally

is generalized

here

to tonic

no English

it would present

of the process

A corollary no alternants

Such a theory

words;

no s representation

nonsYllabics

underlying

is obligatory it

are

much

dialects

w in atonic

therefore

.

and the development

leaving

traces but

noesY1labics

before

altogether

example

two _processes,

representation

separate In dialect

deletion

why there

for

before

, the

All

I, r],

therefore

representation

/j/,

representation

dialects

nonsYllabics, original

optional

underlying

from the most

superficial dialects

of /h/

from A to C as coincidental

and a coincidental leaves

nonoccurrence

Furthermore,

a generalization susceptible

derived

of explaining

1w!.

governing

governing

and its

h/ before

of each of the The pattern

processes

sonority y would be missed

development

A-D

the

sonority

A

h

separates

from those

connection

tonic wJ

which

of They

are

not,

, at

/j/. the

'archisegments'

of

structural

and

least ,

in

principle,

pro-

semi-abstractions

generative

phonology

like .

In

36

31

is not identified voiceless

p/ of pin or the voiced

voicelessness dictable: spin

is

is not distinctive obstruents

are

considered

b

of bin

there

being

no shin

after

Es].

Rather

voiceless

a labial

Archisegments

came into

view of underlying

CourtenaY the

(1895),

oomfield

phonemes

1933

and others

view of Saussure

1933

and others

tures.

As Twaddell

phoneme as a set sion

that

voiceless

are

P3 b

b

of bin,

evidence

identical, after orthographic

spontaneous

spellings

orthography

Ze, mash/smash,

in Wright

stops:

bash

the mental-

In the

these

school

to its

sought

the redundantly

s

that

as opposed are

the p' s of spin to the b of bin,

phonologically

tradition

voiceless.

in English

--WISPRT whispered, TID started

with little

s.

segments,

knowledge

SCICHTA Read 1971.

of

As the

empirical

of

pin

it is remarkable

th

1 view of the phone

e t al .

as a basic

the Phonologfists

theory

8)

t

our rather

leaves

cited e:

the

archise

(1954)-and of the

Halle

in

the

archise

previous

(Stanley .

of

ver

gmental

1967

the

ies

'sy

stematic

proble

ms

, ChomskY & Ha11e

ofarchi -

segments

indeterminate.

indicates

of

,

ultimately

formal

paragraph

ental

e

1962 , Chomsky 1964).

certain

identity

id not

were never

property does noteliminate thecritical

since evidence

d

Trubetz koY (1936)

Halle

phonology

features

at Twaddellts

, it was explicitly

1935

to eliminate

18

who followed

for or against

1951

voiced

me treats

facts

characteristic

of orgenerative

.

a s nonidentical

o r another

unch

to words with etc

evidence

with unspecified

not In

nor

scr

of Englashh doublets

but not scrouc h

segments

Twaddell

of this

indeterminat

simply

added

But the psychological

Jakobson

Chapter

pe , NOSTR English There are monster SKEEIG skiing, STAR

identical

In one version

theory

associated

not

a rchisegmenta

F romkin

in crunch

a long list

by many Phonologfists-Firth

phonemic'

There is

areoflanguages) writing p t k

the

It was incorporated

1968:

There

that

1951

and that

and comparable

than b d 9 after

of children

and pin

grouch

sed in slips

for whisper s

is never

of such evidence

representation.

hwibsr

etc .

face

neither

i s transpo

intensive

1905:242-44)

distinguish attempted to find

Harris

P of pin and the

when /s

not

that

abandonment.

out:

accepted

to the conclu-

fact

phonologically

lead

fea-

hwips r

but not spash,

observation

view of the

is also

s tr

The revision

rather the

there

is the

occurs

'distinctive'

voiceless

There

un-

which distin characterized solely entities by those

leads

1971.

p, b

'functional' Bl

this

features'

distinctively

is abundant

stops sto

persistent

recognized,

e.g.

trample

by

which appear

tongue,

pof

the Prague

their

stops

the

of spin.

phonologically

in general eneral the

the

voiceless

But there

first

of 'distinctive

besides

distinctively

1934

but pre-

was supplanted

phonemes are

phonemes in a language,

of the

after

properties them from other

its

of Baudouin de

1959,

that

the voiceless

stop assPecified to voice.

theory

segments

SaPit

an timers talist

Phonological

thetheories those the Pofspin

because

an 'archisegment'

specified

ist

with

it

is

representation

are

correct. theory than

the that

identification of

bin

tape follows

of

the

from

stop the

spin fact

with that

that there

is

,.

38 no

process

that

sibilant

context

sibilant

voiced

earlier

in

depends,

eliminates

voiceless

example

skou

let's

go).

words

correct

principle

system of

the

subtlety

of

and

from

generality

taken

ants

orb

the

that

face

value

Y a

g eneral

representation. fully

specified

as

This conclusion language

assumption

is clear)

to

devised

identif he

seed

they

But

there

underlying find -

some -

-

is

'archise

their

under)

the

are

no

--

undoubtedly

it

is

obvious

all

prevented them

underlying in

true

segments ea

Sapit

to an understanding

of and e r 1g in

inventories:

to

P,

b

of

'archise

g ment'

alphabets

which rather

the

segment _ _1 -

P

of

spin, m

pin to

n

furnish than

and m

of

b

of

limb

lint,

and

graphic segments.

inventories

laws

alter-

structure

of

which

is

laws

high

of

Jakobson's

so

the Y Y n

of

Zin-t

of

t actual

(-count:

the

the

inventory

implic

vowels

these

the

loss

ational

laws

processes front

unrounding V palatal !lower

.

from

the

and

o f phoneme the P of

a

vowel.

se e ks

and

unr ound ones

derives

-'- -round

imPlica-

e governed

the

vowels:

the

These

id

For example,

front

corresponding

th e loss

systems

nature

the

im ' lies

and

1 Processes,

he called

implies

the m corresponding

that a r phoneme

phonolagica

of

change

vowel

in-

stratified

vowels

and

in

to Jakobson

o f a mid vowel high

of

hat

so forth

acquisition

acquisition

presuppose

process

and

indicate 1972a9Asthese s

their

in the

round

vowels

assumes

study

governing

occurrence

o f front

Miller

of phonemes

According the

corresponding the

by Patricia

inventories those

([l939]l968)

Jakobs on discovered w

implies

also

implies

of

sPonding

for

necessary

rt1

govern

stud

of vowel tudies

implication'

unround

context-free

~relations

round

forth.

sounds.

front

Miller's innate

of

occurrence

thus

vowel

are unable

and

of

acquisition

out,

bin

the

occurrence

further 1n her

independent

phoneme

to the

and carried'

'unilateral

the

processes

by TrubetzkoY

the

of mid vowels

inventories;

This

are

of

context-free

d'ustification

governing

surface

vowels

tional

each

indirectly

underlie

nFr~4 rrht-cnrt.r

gP

196$)

principles

universal

Y

the

systems

segments

high

b

inaugurated

study

of

equivalents It

1941

occurrence

out

irical

and Jakobson

are

ruled

question.

inventories

ventories

of how alphabets

representation

es-~m

all

that

has pointed

is-r-~st

which

ures.toas

1925).

in

languages

are

assumption

language

one,

of

not

honological

i

underlying

honetic

the

there

but

by their

from

As McCawley 1968:89

'

is

the

from

paragraph it

consciousness

critical

of

is

the traditional

speakers'

archisegmeans account

This

last

in the

To summarize,

bars

of

L2 f segments

was cited

phonemes which is at least

ent'

add

is

that that

theories

these

this

this

processes

learned.

the

post-

of

in the

not

post-

identification

identification

means

and used.

mental

add

it

has an inventor to its

archise

the

rescues

accessible

are

of

unless

to

This

since

cited

process

This

ones

of English.

evidence

this

eliminating

interrelation

identification

stops) at

on the

affecting

a process

of

Phonological

are

is

in favor

natural

nonsibilant

there

stops

stops

in other

the

voiceless

whereas

the

39

to

possible

law that from

bY

derive in terfront a corre-

41

40 ,The process historical dP>

exemplified

is

change, dePdee

lower

vowels

round

p.

are

There

vowels

Mxddle

As is

indicated

more susceptible k sen oxen is

law does

e.g.

English

>

process Process,

the

mastery

front

of

predict

what

it

need

not

1947

fir

notation

front

for

mastery

untoand

of front dueConsequently,

vowels.

happen

law can a primitive

and its

to front

It

imPlicational

Shift,

can

be extended

to other

from does process andsince t

of phonological

as Miller or

chromatic

it

is

also

to

a process

true

palatal f only or that

low

raising

round

vowels

chromatic

vowels,

and

for

such

imply

mid vowels.

This

vowels

one degree

of height:

dence

that

also

exemplified

in children

laws.

the

the extent

vowels

law that that

raising)

thongization,

[dip)

deep, [w1 eptibility susc bone. The grea

illustrated

by

a k] > [week weak os > 9

of lower vowels to raising

is ter

heweooptso the aliyof loth century Englishk

mouse u

Chehalis,

exceptions

to this

processes.

> mi i s

mice

Vowel left

a

In StamPe 1972 I give evi-system with , the raising

American Indian and in Pashto

high vowels

of

to mid.

imply high vowels

is not overridden

by conflicting

e

languages,

and other

are lowered

of course, processes

that

underlie

leap

the

explanation

underlie

a e.g.

languages In other

is true

process

just

to

in this

processes

diPh-

from systems

systems

referred

to systems

of the

the system,

to phonetic

causalities.

causalities

involved

attempted

causalities.

In Miller's

of Phonological

must

to the phonetic

Jakobson

to phonetic

many exceptions.

in turn

of phoneme systems

the processes.

confront

amples

the basis

as in the English

Phonological

that

are

are

preceded

mid vowels

are

of other

mis

he proposed

these goose,

vowels,

s,

case the

lowering.

go beyond the

Leopo

there

the corresponding

Ultimately,

corresponds

!lower

interference

In several

lax

In this

law.

that

diPhthongization

(presumably

shows, lawthat The midvowels imply high vowels is case true,

1943) and in hi storicalcal us

but no

Yokuts and Southern long

however,

> m s

o

this

make a direct

i

imPlicational

of high tense mus

causalities

This process

of applicability

by over a century.)

The

implicational

hierarchy

law due to the

where

words reasoning

wake obligatorily.)

must be noted

e

round P

be derived

> [wk]

the corresponding

The

theory. Similar

[wk]

DiPhthongization

vowels.

by a child ifthey vowels the areor not adult.

be considered

process

•ire, in

than higher ones, ~r ire remained f YOid e.g. English ~

the

will

week while

and

[!lowed,

rounding

unround~.n$

he implicational process,

>

to unto unding ' eksenwhile

pronounceable

the

fYr

the

not

Leopold

by the

no context-free

implies

im licational

children

e.g.

to round

in

work, processes,

I have sketched above on pages

22-24.

to

The laws phoneme and some exAs we

have seen, processes respond to phonetic difficulties in ways that > wik t t ti n are appropriate but which may conflict with other processes. The

_

~i l

42 systems

enables of processes inclusion 1n the theory of phoneme

CHAPTER Miller

to

account

straightforwardly

formed

errant,

vowevowelsystems as

which

Jakobson's

and

remain

which

for to

discover

hidden

does

not

many

many

from

allow

vowel

the

such

There

single,

returns

us

coherent

speech partially

to

my remark

but

f or rather

contradictory

purposefulness

of

characteristics

dealing

these

with

a set

a biological

standpoint

The

animal mal

is

capacity ,

is

is

the of

not

specific the

imperfectly

itself,

adapted

expectations that

often

cross-

which

from

speech.

man

is

aspects

of

to

discover,

for

ultimately

it

Limitations

cope

i

Arabic

a u

A11 of

of

these

vowel

trnY

with

the

existence

A A a are

systems. optimal

Abkhax

readily

, and

3-vowel i

accommodated

Phonetic distinctions

of

e a

of

by

as

of

n

studies

o f perceptuall

between

sounds

must

diverse LeoPold

Miller's

process Yand be

that

t

h onemess govern

such

Yterns systems.

themselves

but

rather

to

the

language processes

hedge

that of

occur

speech

.

is well-justified,

be satisfying.

which

processes

of

remain.

for

in

the

In

certain or perception production (p

linguistic

'as-if'

type

calls

of of grammar

but

ExPlanations

descriptions

language,

view

petence'

competence/performance

of

basis

such

of

limitations

the

when less

performance

are

explanations. required

by

a divide-and-conquer

limited

the

presuppose data

data

are

will

not

expanded.

as . theory

that be This

theories

devised s y

fundamentally presupposition

could

processes

than

in

the

case

of

the

competence/ be hardly

es increasin

1

clear

that

of

Performance

optimal systems L

general

are

the

conditions

responsible

means

for

theory

I

the

nature

of

striking

'1'he

of

the

a peculiarity

Particularly

articula-

referred

plausible

dichotomy, use of

phonology,

language

language.

This

is

but

phonology

assumes

that

systems

and

superficial

not

Presents

by

any

a

case. am presenting

of

phonological

not o .y processes

to

actual

'as-if'

the

But

inadequate

1972 perceptuallycan vowels the

Hildegand

the

to

his adapted evenfor evolving sound-systems

systems

systems

cannot

complexity

on the

in hardly

the

this

bas ed on

trate

imperfectly

indblom

of

linguistics

hard) Recent Re imperfections. attempts

of

in linguistics

'erformance')

the

Further-

minimize

not

OF PROCESSES

speech.

for

for

descriptions

and

phenomena conflicting

1 oonly al y secondarily

after

our

and

of

a tendency

a

of

a reflex

speech

furnish

limitations

highly

merely

for

have more, we Jakobsonian

did

Undoubtedly

processes

the

nature

with

Processes.

of

speaking

that

been

as speakers,

system

capacity,

has

competition

processes . 20 among This•

THE ORGANIZATION

of formerly seemed aberrant,

viewpoint

natural

II

which

regularities

a static

for

systems

of

are

utterances

related

by

real really

the

actual

that

the

exist agency

underlying and

that

they

o f these 43

are

processes.

representations

constrained It

and assumes

inter-

that

., .

45

44 when processes tions

perform

occurring

Without

be a

these

in the performance

of utterances. merely

substitutions,

these

are actual

mental

as well

assumptions,

model ' : furnishing

the

not literal

substitu-

as physical)

theory

evidence occur

cited

in Chapter

in the mind.

striking

fact:

but only analogical

of the

or

ste ipfor

khat

of the

stops

with

pronounced

tat

for

spa9r E t

with

aspiration

here,

but

various

memory processes in

tongue

the

tape

or

spaghetti,

do not

.

the

or

of

studies. which

utterances

apply

after

processing

of

which

not

slips

occur

occur,

constraints

ar

phonetic

behavior.

examples

occasionally

and therefore

etc.,

be given E

1971

scramblings

of

in the

cites

features,

short-term

Phonological must

demonstrably

also

aPP1Y

d

other

but those

slips'

of speech,

e.g.

by Pronouncing

which they

Now, the

significant

they

these

create

and alternations,

one h ears

after

PalatalitY

k itty

and

electricity

Fromkin

41),

is

behavioral

constraints

which are

d

The distinction

a puzzle

readily

perceived

between

is

by speakers.

not

fail

and

simply

r. n~n n ~.~o r a n l'r~ n h tinr. n.•. .-1..- n.... n .+Y. ...+..

our

like

..,

,...

this kar

9,E.n Lk l. sa' by

1.._

is

of

an

z. zPs occur

Thus

innate Phonological the behavior.

constraints

constraint s

this

if

Phonetic

acquired

An innate

n 9i)

spoonerism

governed

govern

and

place,

sometimes

e would expect

as

which

innate

s

first

alternations

but

do

Children

in the

fro m reading

sl'

learned

[si,

to Romance derivatives.

spooner is readjusted after process, ism occurs. become

k

vowels in

and 9e t with

ive to sli ps: the

9],

of

adult s say pedago[g]y,

•iz

of

which

learned.

just

abo ut learned

insensit

beside

learly

s

or learn

rule

applied

with

learn

d3intkl

the

is

sub stitutions

thing

are utterly

k

words like

guys is not

Note that

electric

pedagogy c [d3],

merely

govern

constraints

[d3] bef ore reflex es of frontt

limit

uho± hontheories ological The t P

the alternation

For example,

utterances. when learned,

t

tha

ng if these

Phonologi cal constr aints

to show the alternation

w learned

however,

from the outset

do

learned.

9beside

and then

cynical

innate.

speed h.

in adult

Some words they

that

clearly,

shows and

than

It would b e surprisi

are

do not begin

could

one, • Fromkin

,

Phonological

in many ways from th o se involv ing processes,

pedagogue

s 9ep~:i

~

in speech -production.

constraints, after

are

in

9aspEr i,

language

child

most

rather

learned

words of Romance origin,

we have ,

y readjusted;

a novel

occur

i,

are

with Es] and [g] with

slips

Similarly

skapEc

Slips

individual

g ~.ca1

sk,e ..,p i

we do not find

Many further is

to the result that

of

of

assumption

the

constraints

different

by a

are adjusted

sthep i

the

accept

There are

t he ip , the aspiration

and Palatalit

observation

storage

kat

occur.

sequences

apply

of the [ki

that

substitutions

like

skat

skebEr i,

, voicing,

'

processes

we

did not persist

given the

is corroborated

new contexts:

sk ei

How fhonolo P constraints

reality

Thus in slips

scotch

their

doubtful

Phonolo g ical

Phonological

corroborative

segments,

I that

and the PalatalitY

accordance

g,'aspri

may appear

But their

that

of 'slips

and

of reality

if

evidence

would

explanations. The assumption

only

represents

is a

,

47

46 for

a monolingual

English

speaker

to

suspend

the

innate

processes.

process

it governing

aspiration

syllables;

this

k hatste

of i s

„~Pfor

of tonic

voiceless

reflected

in

skat

his

thoJP

to aspirate

is perceptible before

certainly

etreatment of the in

scotch tape,

J

as in

pat+t

his

petite,

aspiration

and in his

be suspended

beside [gatje]

but it requires

etious In the following

to

discussion

innate

honolo ical processes

it is essential

that the distinction

for

these

two

classes

of

have

a

failure

work

Recent

characteristics. to

make b Ymarred

in

phonology

has

between

di the stinction

are

by

governed

properties

f processes

conversely,

certain

have properties

acquired b een o of

optional,

may be optional;

in fact

to

have

been

fact

it

one,

istinction

brings to

and

the

supposed

in s P eech of the

infant

Old

English

shortened:

before

from

applying

distinct

might processes cases

in sequence. as

rules

nts

it,

which which

are

is

the

the

language

reflected

in

P roduction.

failure

to distinguish willingness which

origins. there

between

to

attribute

seem quite

For example, were

to

out

of

KiParskY

two contexts

1968

in which

clusters

, and before

processes

e.g.

two-consonant

vowels

bremblas clusters 'brambles' ble"tsi'an

certain As.a

from on the mistaken assumption that all

bletsi'an

shortening English

and,

attributed

The

I understand

constraints

three-consonant

braernb las

been

wind

contrary

origins

characteristics

their in

seemingly

rules,

rules

processes

and canstrai

an uncritical

cognitive with

language

certain

individual

between

roles

been

that

that

and

whose

result

has

that

in mouse/mice,

speaker,

ct

processes

a to

the

rules

those

processes

an absolute

brings

like

and that

processes

speaker

because

substitutions, several

acquired

hand

appears

between

were

quite

in

of an optional

other

been

distinction

notes

andrules and

result

rules b

attributed rules

are

processes

constraints

substitutions

sometimes

involve

'ambles' different

also

case

On the

do so;

keeping

'rules',

be kept

constraints

has

Another

between

and acquired Phonological

it

their

eZectrickit in thefac apparent y.

overningthe g 1 k s alternation'n z English

~n mind ,

as is

and how tthey are organized into systems.

In this

f irml

substitutions

pages I will discuss so me characteristics

of P honolo gi ca t pprocesses

ike that p

difficult presents electricity Y whatsoever,

make radical

actually

got you, can

some conscious effort

pronunciation

many Processes

rules

clear

rule.

make minimal

apical

k in electric! obligatory substitution ofacquired s for no articuiatory

because

that

know a single

likewise

the other hand, to suspend thesodoin actual discourse. On

resents

supposed

phonological

wound

processes,

The process palatalizing 9atJ 'a

been

I do not

spoonerism

Even in the case of optional

difficulty.

has

example,

the

stops in words like Gurkha where the stress

does not fallow the stop.

obstruents

at

treatm

stops in French wards like

failure

there

stops

For

to

.

The latter

ChomskY and Halle speakers

unreasonable

had

to assume

is nowadays 1968

to learn

these

further

that

,

referred

On the

assumption

constraints since

to as

both

it

is

involve

'bless' (roughly) followed by twounaccented syllables (e.g.

trisYllabic ~ that

Old

not shortening

49

I V

of

vowels

speakers

Generative

would

have

phonological

binations

of

rules:

V

}

generalized

theory

their

furnishes

common

a device

for

properties

such

And for

.

V -} -long

com-

This reanalYsis

-long

cc

CC

VCV To show of

that

this

combining

the

Middle

English

by one

consonant:

E .g.

argues,

. it

is

were the

cognitive

analysis

makes a single

have

not

way

English

in

early

matron. these

tightened

. represents

two-consonant As for

by the failure

three-consonant

e.g.

hiehsta

typically

clusters

involve tendency

As in Modern English,

of shortening clusters

'highest'

cases

bletsi

a weakly accented of this

English,

Middle

.CC, e.g.

like

medial

ader

ad,e)res

re sponden

~'an

divinity,

vowel,

vowel to be syncopated

e.g

to

which were

or before

syllabicated

the trisY llabic

VCV

the

changed

of

of

this

versa,

implied

of

imposed should

by the

i t turns

been

incorrectly

analyzed syllables

otherwise

it

this on

. and

a consonant

KiParsk Y

zeroing

as is

both in

'father/father's'.

to

the

examples

which

at

to its

When this

oddity

in fact

The correct in trisYllabic

-)- -tong a syllable

left:

There

is only

brackets

analysis

simple

contexts

change

singly-closed CC. boundary.)

,

we are ological

di.vin

i

eliminating reality

the had

only

the syllable

syllabication,

of brmmblas and husband.

responding

to closed

under the proposed for shortening

In eliminating

been

divi-

by the same closed-syllable

conditions

syllables.

into

Given ' this

from Old to Middle English

because

of the

divinity

d o v, a, nE i. n

consonant

the shortening

the one process,

is needed

da,vrc.a.ti '"

contrast

the preceding

for

the change

,

zCr.a.wi ~

vowel in the Old and Middle English

~'an

responsible

to explain

the

blets.i.

[n],

words were shortened

condition is

in manY dialects)

forced

of supporting

compare Modern English

of syllable-final

likewise

IrisYllabic of

syllable;

The weak medial

odd

sort

a weak vowel is incapable

z i ro

flapping

seems

by its

in its

beside

nation).

changes

language

that

with

unconnected

same way.

sort

be subject

out

divinity

nonetheless

the

brackets.

thoroughly,

in closed

bracket,

in the

argument,

changes were

the

why these

simultaneously

beauty

vice

reality

'stirrups',

process: V

C.CC

Old and Middle

more

shortening

syllabicated real that

were

Old English

C

to explain

inception

and

investigated

simultaneously

s t2rope ~ s > st ti ropes

motivated

their

out

is motivated

C

possible

speakers,

changes

constraints

points

C.

aPP1Y before

shown by the

phonetically in

a psychologically '

Kiparsky

By recognizing

Granting

least

shortenings,

> husband

constraints

that

represents

-~ -long

husband

> divinity

device

both

V

Middle English:

example evidenced

in for

no recourse analysis

brackets

historical in

to

it is a

from doubly-

the brackets which

syllables;

in this and a sound

to case psychchange.

51

50 Another the

cognitive

formulation

extended

would them

not

+

processes

principles

governing

in

any

language.

In

by

the

nasality

a process process would

example),

superficial

nasality

it

all

impossible

nasality

tautosYllabic and

clearly

indicates. denasalization

this

Phonological

against

the

speech,

vowels

does not occur,

is

as

before

impossible

analysis: thereby

the

Perceived evidence

determined

of

analysis

cited

in

there

is

when segments

deleted

are

nasalized,

of the

My third

processes

involved just

this

ordering

argued

I

process

in casual e.g.

Sons'. cussion,

1-1- e'ma

nt'i r~a1--

a avnnea h1fI n li Z1? 'f:"''?

of the English

196$

e.g.t

I have attempted

he rule

here is in the

proposed

the formation

is no reason

in

phonologic al

analysis

of the use of cognitive of processes

bY

of the imperfect

to expect

logical

reflecting

is the trisYllabic didn't

exist,

devices

concerns

of contradictory

innate

a recent

Processes. shortening

S Anderson

appropriateate proposal

One of the process,

(1969:

which i i

137-43

CV C V of Middle English e. g , baleen

were lowered:

Anderson's

which lengthened

stressed

OE bacan

The vowels

V '

formulation

simplified

-I-long 1-high

etc .

wik wekks `week/weeks ' , Sun SaI28S ' Son

is: +stress

.3lcl -3- I h1 I n l -+ r hi 1 f11. }»iman

device

capacity.

in open syllables

so lengthened evidence

of the variable

is

process

and another vowels

rules

it It

may seem as a strategy

there

speech

in the analysis the

scat

to be imposed on constraints

example

regarding

-}

What I wish to emphasize

to describe

V + -long

explains

are

limitations

in

context-

unequivocal

356-7

sort

cites

a

Chapter

between

nasalization

to nasalization

before

of acquired

devices

to rules

variable

the device

languages,

of this

9- stE "a

by ChomskY and Halle

plausible

formulation

denasa lization

has been employed in recent

of in Stampe 1912.

however

I have

invariant

the merits

in West Semitic

is

as nonnasal

distinguishing

Besides,

fact

here

proposed

ChomskY and Halle

in

senate

Vowel Shift to dispose

reciprocal

s"iat

The controversial

apparently,

English

occurring

to discuss

mental

application

with

e.g.

analysis

by a context-sensitive

invariably

and context-sensitive perception.

to

to the hypothesized

analysis.

that

nonnasals.

segment

due

make

this

be reciprocally

why vowels

the

also

The reciprocal

phonologically

The analysis

exposed

is

there

vowels

each case where it

of

that

to

nasals.

vowels

languages,

reciprocal

elegance

and,

followed

to explain

are

similar

free

before

would

in English

vowels seems

vowels

i.e.

nasal

English

been

which

to be an incorrect

appearance

vowels

but

of a following

this

denasalizing

make

has

nasal

For example,

nasals

I argued

denasalizing

vowel

nasalizing

seems

I,

or nonnasalitY

an apparent

which

in

as reciprocal

7) .

nasalization

Chapter

process where

a role

variable

The cognitive it

the

languages

before

nonnasals.

of

In

but

alpha

Chapter

nasal

notwithstanding,

no Phonological

the

play

nnasal

before

formulation

is

1968:

make vowels

nonnasal

rules

to be expressed

anasal

only

indeed

Phonological

ChomskY and Halle V

might

to processes

assimilation

changes

which

of acquired

uncritically permits

device

CV

slightly

for

this

dis-

,

52 He notes

that

single

if

form,

in which eveZ

they

they

give

incorrect

evil

do not

form

result

from

sumer-e

shortening

x

x

lengthening

*eveles

notes

that

would

not

either

order

s

had somor

had

explainable

sumere

ivel-es

sumer-es

lengthening

eveles

sameres -

* eveles "

*someres "

shortening

lengthening

properly

includes

the

context

of

the

shortening

Citing

a parallel

proposes

that

process

and

the

principle

when

two processes

applies

and

examples

cited

correct

forms

the

general

the

2veZes

one

each

does

lengthening and

not .

process

sumeres

would

,

.

or

a grammarian

would

be

totally

here

makes

no

like point

of

rules

proposed In any processes,

which are

b y its

disjunctive event

the by

would

positing

the

are

about

formulate

a specific

b Y a more

These

language

as a hypothesis Panini

in

eradicated

language. the

sense

general

imposed

rules; rule

rule.

on learners

Phonolo$ical

how a language

changes

if But

the

correct it

by the

1 earners.

And it

is no t at

principle

should

be a pPlicable

principle way that

seems

to be fals ified

allophonic

prope rties

were

This

s

all

of

imposed clear to

at

of

speaking

why processes.

fact

on is

e .g.

iv.e.les,

these

e.g.

ivies,

syllabicated

on

by the

the

surnres. hand

clusters with

the

nonoccurrence the

short

the

preceding thus

least

for

left,

sounds

are

The same

consonant closing

syllabications

the

vowel and

of

these

It

apparently it

so that words

out

the

and

special turn

for

due

ated

the

bY

len

gthening

'son /sons'.

clusters

before were

is

also

confirmed

like

c2

man

weak

syllable

lengthening persist

,

that

in Middle

was too

into

C

lengthened

these

.

pointed

so . nes

were

in words

forced

syllable

when

syllable

lengthening I

vowels

patron

following of

final

context

such

. Again

corrobor

The correct

in ' which

, e.g.

is

in sun

that able.

was in

variants

as

to which

English?

their

syncopated

was

b y words

this

e

would

fact

was of

g th

nasals

inexplic

which

syllable;

have

before

make the

because

sum .e.res,

medial

forms

other

two-consonant

where

forms

confirmed

the

the

irisYllabic

up to

to any vowel

process

I

denasalizln g

proposes

I have already

to

of

fully

of Middle

shortening

that

the

for

is

as nonnasal

the

weakness

English,

effects not

context

This

vowels

not apply

.

Chapter

Anderson

two processes faulty

in

process

condition

Perceived

the

shown

representations

apply , and would

see m; to be

syllabication,

rule,

nature

, processe

learner

about

general

would

later

was

nasalizing

disjunctive

phonologically

applied

the

the

process

As

nonnas al .

governs

den asalization

what

analysis

there

we are

are

that

specific

would

the

obviously its

that

nasalization

the

assume

the

.

underlYing1Y

o f context

But

predict

that

are

we

the

applies.

to

result. This

if

But

contradict

vowels

that

vowels

of Panini's

representation

regardless

point

form

underlying

English

vowels

of application:

base

*so metes

three-syllable

apply

strm©r , it

in

all

the

specific

the

for

English

ignored

order

of

Anderson

in

2 el , Middle

the

context

CV C V .

Thus

of

the

process

the

regardless

formulated

CV

other,

aPP1Y to a

as

process

grammar,

, a s formulated,

results

and

ivel-es

Anderson

53

processes

For Old English

'evil/of

forms

base

these

aPP1Y

iveles

These

both

did

et

c.,

to carry to the not

a

pply.

in Modern English

55

54 P„ei.tran

note

2

sir.

[me. i

syllable-final zation of

of

a vowel

C,

principle

sumeres

of

disjunctive like

do

real

seem

the

sequence.

all

of

that

have

be.

The most

the

been

seems

process

on

that

for

this

to

ized

sequential

an optional

optionally segment

nasalized:

kLi as

hii r~

in

the

beyond which

e.g.

process

vowel

of

as

that

flap '

involves

could

the

dependence

of

the

the

first

optional

process,

in

It

seems

rapid. is like

in

beside

s~i

deletes

flaps

, e.g

k Lri

applies

before

, the

preceding

vowel if

the

a nasal-

in

won

In

the

output

button

not

bra?n " )

wodn each

process

is

wooden

of

these

strictly

of a separate

obvious

explanation

anon

applies

to

apply

to the

output

simultaneous

the

operations

and

for

output

of

this

the

other

are

package'

due

I propose

an example,

1

and

of

i n (2-1)

to linear

explaining neural

an alternative

unfortunately

rather

be much more

one after

8)

it

In

generative in fact

been

The assumption

and

b99' o lz

has

who argues 2

labial

hamn'-um

sequence

the

processing another

has

1969

syncope

bo99ul2

could

line .

in some words , e.g.

} ho"m rum

possibility as

of

processes?

of speech

ordered.

by S. Anderson

sequence

the

out

Chapter

linearly

processes

the

strung

1968•

of other

neurology

on an assembly

however,

1-2

the

are

Halle

processes

application

that

processes

'to

of processes

give

that

-} hamrum

on

and

conjecture

the

Before is

that

challenged,

Icelandic

doubt

nasals:

ation

o f the

of an optional

before

not nasaliz

output

or novaPPlication

nasaliz

ChomskY and

a99ul-i

is flap

and

that

hammers'

And of the

consonants

processes

consecutive

been

[bra?]

true

sequence.

obvious

linear,

nasalizes seen

that

We might

applied

spin

nonnasal

unrelated

The same is

glottals.

of the

application

is

occur,

w"n o n

on the

a doubt . Consider vowels

voiced

dependent

assumed

.

b nn ).

application

phonology

process

deletion

remains

not

not

optionally

Why should or

if

they

of

the

process,

The arguments

an optional

, and

discussed

hSriqhztt2n9' This

of

operation

If

.

cases,

, ffor

most

sequence

wodn

not

deleting

nasalizing

not

does

process b nn

dependence

processes

that

or nonaPPlication

obligatorily,

kit

problematic

Consider

as conclusive

output

application

segments is

not

commonplace

I have

There

the

aPP1Y simultaneously

I am aware

the

o f English

see.

apply

can be under-

accepted

optionally

are not

h"ci ~ q

an optional

process

did

of

functions.

aPP1Y in

are

the

nasal

nasali-

The contexts

to

these

processes

evidence

fairly the

many of

to be generally

their

before

.

deleted;

of

of

corrected

appealing

phonetic

establishes Process

nasal}

of why lengthening

in a system

are

typical

obligatory

, as

without

their

conclusive

this

the

to some characteristics

of a process

like

and

lengthening

of whether

given

n

not

syllable-final

flapping

a tautosYllabic

to show

of

processes

application

second

and

It

and

solved

to turn

question

in

of

application.

reflections

example,

Cases

is

instead

obligatory

The problem

or

I would

as

the t

and

exclusive,

iveles

stood

note

preceding

shortening

that

t

iratervocalic

mutually to

syllable-Initial

umlaut 'to

in others

This

sequential

that

the , - e.g.

conclusion

casts

application

structure,22 explanation complex,

, I would that

throws

like

to

somewhat

r

56 clearer

light

processes

on the nature

than do the

57

of the nonlinear

examples

is chosen

from American English

readily

confirmed

by the reader.

three

flapping,

require

but if

attaches

the syllable

to its

left

attached

to the

syllable

responsible

which ical

for

it can be several

are

,

syllabication

ego,

,

filter.

Bothe

veto.

t€ r• e. b !

is subject

above in Old and

to various

a, dP a t

Left-attachment:

syllabication

from phonologisis

are

to mention existence not

relevant spectrograh formants

vowel

structure

The

application

is

has not received

are

many

to

the

example

include

Palatalization

palatal

vowel,

ig,.]

eagle

o r phoneticians,

stops

only

syllable,

e.g.

dis.t

the fact

that

morphologically table

some of the phonetic and location

difficult cues.

to 'hear' The chief

P Ys are undergo

digress

and Phonological

of syllable

boundaries

.

it deserves briefly

evidence Syllable

once one has become conscious phonetic

the modifications

in ta utosyllabic

of the

cues , which are verifiable ('transitions') contact

with various

that

boundaries

tion

vowel

stages

.

* ri{

,

be one

would Prior

arise

be .

Others

contact okey

,

a

and

to

in a stre

ssed

sense

the stable.

, as is shown b y

syllable

in casual

divisions speech

ns of distaste

the

and this

, syllabication them

syllable .

as it attaches

For example, sno~

Otherwise

words

• . ,

rr . I

real

,t

! •4kt .rc k

and de sYllabifica intermediate

containing

or n _l

optionally

with simultaneous

exactly

optionally

chapge .

to de syll abification

with

ma, st e i k mistake,

The attachment

n-syllable

.

and thz ,stab Ze, with t accordingly

sYllable snowy,

to

alluded

which applies

basic

, attaching

I4kt.rLk

with

leading

versus

sY1labicatio

vowel whose

will

segment

For example

syllabics

simultaneous

which

onset

boundaries

ouk•t •

the first

More strikingly

optionally must

versus

the

syllable

sYllabic

in the full

them .

sno

processes

the

thistable versus 5a •Stelbl

to an adjacent

r ~l

electric

in

eonsYllabics

optionally

from

is

to establishing

to an adjacent

of

ego; o• aspiration,

to dz.s taste

to unstressed

of

tauto

distaste

constrained

unasPirated.

eonsYllabics

in

' iokay

eis t

alter

desYllabification

for

velars

is a process

may be relaxed

applies

, some

at

offset

of

discussion

i f they are

in addition

f CIc • r Prab•a, ~ b {i

this

' •9ou

the

placement

o S ' •theIbl parallel

Syllabication

.

the

~oue,kh

voiceless

echo

I should perhaps

of

versus s

at

occur

comes

English

which

e.g.

VC .V

evidence

in

to

modifications

in

on

examples

it can optionally

the attention

right

dependent

There in

the

phonological

despair,

animate,

V . CV these

to

left.

remaining

Since

the

the

to

probably.

here

of

da] sPE' r

e•k o

aen,a mat

syllabication

morpholog-

syllable

adopt ,

the

constraints

involving

on permissible

terrible

and the

This is the process

s discussed

went.

to its

is instead

to the example at hand

right-attach v• to

is unstressed

left.

and constraints

with

to the syllable

the eonsYllabic

to its

The process

boundaries

right

is stressed

not relevant

Examples

to its

In

the

processes

discussion:

a no nsYllabic

the syllabication

English.)

.9o

It involves

some preliminary

syllable

Middle

so that

The

and flap-deletion.

Syllabication right;

of

of Anderson and others.

example

of which

application

syllabics

n+1

syllabics ri •I

)

-

,".0

58 prior

to attachment.

universally

These intermediate

unpronounceable

such representations reason

fore

given

phonetic

it

that

that

since the

the attachments

in Phonologzeal

, that

optional

out by the same process

that

derivations

nor

they could

basic

Now we are

that

of processes

establishes

is to

occur.

There-

is carried sYllabicatzons

segments

as the attachments

are

evidence

desyllabification

of de syllabified

same principles

is neither

the function

difficulties

seems clear

representations

, and there

ever occur

to believe

eliminate

59

obey precisely

of under)YingIY

In casual

three

released

apical

vowels final

stops

including position.

atorily

saddest,

raer. i $N ~r. r

syllabics,

boar. i sae; ast

at

ratty.

derivation

i s taken

reduction

has

ha rr

elides batting, $i c . r

r

i

thinner,

ooptionally

end of the previous

paragraph.

already

To abbreviate

applied .

because

there

Unstarred

0,

other

1.

syllabication:

2.

flapping:

with

stage

anon;

, the

, t o which vowel

* davC r nat

fnd3

* da ,v'~n.a.ti

f nd 3

da.v'r.a.t~

fnd3

which

. options.

ry

4.

flap-deletion:

har .a s

5.

syllabication:

saer , ast

6,

vowel-nasa

1,

a-harmony:

da.vT~.tI

8.

shortening:

de.vi.

9.

syllabication:

i

da.vt.e.t

i

*da.via.ti

lization:

of

each other

s ubstitutions

da.vrr.e.t

,

i .vi" i. fdn

mark forms which are

obligatory

N

fudge.

e-application

forms are pronounceable

processes

da

the discussion

The asterisks are

like

and r

interwoven

vowel-nasaliz

welded,

in most American idioms .

-initial

the doctor,

bae. ir;

above

3.

is oblig-

,

hearty , 1 w£fr , ad

i s obligatory

in syllable-initial

r

application

divinity

fnd3 fndj fnd3

da.vt.t

i

fnd3

.

in syllable-final

optionally

segment

baer . irbatting

syllable

after

in syllable-

with h-deletion

to be discussed

flaps

flaps

to something

up at an intermediate

have not applied.

, which changes

corresponding

voiced

hothouse

~

is flapping

V > etc)

Examples:

3a.rakt]

oPP1Y to flaps the

haws

process

1•

a following

have optional

The final

to the

no naPical

The process

e.g.

optionally

ci, n

thinner,

mental.

Some speakers

[t,

r

hat

N

mef.1'

to be discussed

Before

voiced: rat

not

process

example , the phrase

the

discussed

processes.

unpronounceable

noesY1lablc

involves

processes

and with other

for the

it can be reduced

derivation

. 23 segments The second

speech

and its the

ready

applications

before

vet o .24

vi.ro

10.

flapping:

is flap-deletion

, which

11.

flap-nasa

position

For example,

12.

flap-deletion:

optionally

13.

syllabication:

14,

vowel-na

saer, ast $i" .r i position

.

saddest,

Flap- deletion , e.gthose

does cited

This the

phrase,

hzation.

salizatzonl '

it

the

not most

,

fnd3 tnd3

da.vrr.

i

f nd3

da.vC7.

i

fnd3 fnd3

da.vi.i

does is

t i

*da .vrt.i

derivation nor

fnd3

*da.vi

i

fnd3

da.vi

i

f nd 3

exh aust extreme

th e pons reducti D

able pronunciations a possible,

but it

of

{t I

60 should

suffice

to illustrate

each other.

They do not apply

and re-apply

whenever

At 1 syllabication at

2 Produces

at 4.

puts

of the

stressed

syllabication this

at any time

t

at 10.

].eke

do not occur ., and it

until

the

resyllabication

tonic

position.

the

the

ante

below to cases

nasality,

this but

flap

post-

removes an obstacle

to

sequential

way that

processes

aPP1Y.

i s imposed on

nonrandom application: of flapping

* da .vC.a.t Flap- deletion performed

o r rapid

example establishes Icelandic

process

re-applies

.

over .

the vowel

This completely of

sPeech.25

that

processes

aPP1Y

example two proces in other

ses apply

forms

b ut

The d vtinz t~ fudge derivation

is possible

applications

it

characteristic

in some forms and in the other

.

There are no fewer

of syllabication

and flap-deletion.

It is this

us to characterize

the application

To understand , shows

to the output

the

re-application

by many casual-speech processes

gesture

that

, as in casual

s not

y occur.

t o vowel-nasalization

is particularly

In Anderson's

in one order

segment

in which the

of vowel- nasalization

of application

iterative)y.

languages

prior

application

Furthermore

deleting

behind which would be extended

substitutions

neither

in other

applied

nasality

processes

shows J

than four

and two each of fl

freedom t o re -apply

that

cf these

processes

should apply

like

apping

enables

as a random

sequence.

In the example there

is only apparent. only the

in immediately

but also

subsequent

distinct

and other

would seem to be the nonoccurring However,

flap-

these

of application.)

were to aPP1Y immediately

it becomes syllable-final

where an ordering

seems to indicate

optionally

more at 13.

which is paralleled

random nonlinear

return

that

at 12 again

involving

of

and other

flap-deletion

optional

application

have flapped

t

Thus if

.

random order

a repre-

with syllable-initial

at 5 Put

only in English

by the

flap

application

of flap-deletion

would leave

can apply ,

The third

to another

until

flapping

[o] , produces

could

arise

could not become syllable-final

a

Flap-deletion

in English

sequence

thing

of

which occurs

derivations

I will

t

"" da.vr~.a.i

deletion,

This example,

Its

is true

aPP1 Y

obstruent

at 5 .

at 9 : leads

but it is not deletable

at 9 (pronunciations

clearly

the relatively

re syllabication

time to

resYllabication

context .

to which flap-deletion

process,

with

they would eliminate

vowel and the unstressed to

interact

order , but rather

into a flapping

by eliminating

vulnerable

flapping, g,

n

a representation

the

sentation

in a linear

the configurations

Flap-deletion,

between

61

the way the processes

classical and

if flap- deletion

before

at 2

between

the result nasality.

does not eliminate tongue

I think

Syllabication

is only one

i , lacking

by the

sufficient

this

term

the phrasing

it

stands

to

processes

the

depend

0n

. and

principle

these,

reason

occurs

stress-assignment but

their

and 'con-sonants+

syllabication

resolving of

to understand

determines

therefore

here

why processes

of

that are

accent

above

suggested , in

turn

derivation

s

functions

in part should

too

it i

.

(to use th

some mutual

syllabication

priority

the

of 'sonants' It depends

(There

syllabication In

respective

this

an stress , be est

averY , for

ablished

dependencies

complex

here

e

to e

seems

xplore

capable

large example,

number every

of

.

63

62 Process is

is

at

least

obligatory

dependent

syllable-finally

nasalization

is

e.

partially

sa r

obligatory

s2

NNN

within

sa 7. r

.

Flap-deletion

and

syllabication:

optional

and

sa~•,nai

occurs only syllable-finally, within syllables,

syllables

thus it occurs at 8 but not after

and shortening

In Chapter

of each of

[31w and

this may be left

for the reader

sufficient

the application

of syllabication

of segmental processes like

that sonority

(syllabic)

condition:

of

segments eliminates

is

impossible

cannot rN ,

be a

flap-deletion

flap-deletion. completely

attached

can

be

in

sequence given

to

it

is

flanked

either.

But

resYllabified.

depends The

natural,

because

the

of the

first

functions

when

Thus

depends and

of

the

less

in

turn

on is

with

processes

to

had applied

to pronounce

two-thirds Instead,

lam lamb

J'ard yard

-

dePalatalization:

zaem

zard

zak

other

jam

zab

zad

zak

processes:

us to understand

of segments. segments

to

of the sounds

is a tYPical

due to resYllabication interplay

example.

of the

of the conditions sYllabications

and inadmissible

which nasalizes

if they are

sYllabications

results

pronunciations:

)

why some processes

Nasalization,

obligatorily

alternative

the alternative

admissible

enables

otherwise,

the

J

ak Jacques

ard

latter

z ,

they applied

m

to nasal

ones.

simultaneously,

-

from [a],

on

changed

to eliminate.

form:

which has the the

This is true

-

optionally

sonorant

the very

sequence:

aPP1Y to strings prior

flap-deletion

re-applications

processes.

for

desYllab-

syllabication,

place,

applications

by

supposed

The same logic

the syllable

* airzn . In da.v&.a.ti

If these

sPirantization:

illustrate

in sequence. simultaneous

creating

are eliminating.

Joan Velten

delateralization:

This

to be pronounceable;

J.

are

adult

by the

are transposed

and must be resYllabified

a

and

airnz] irons '

to

in the natural

depend in turn on flap-deletion.

I

apply

as well as context-conditioned

I, we saw that

the processes

from the margins to the peak

Words like

* ainrz

The point

processes

neural

processes,

in some processes

processes

about

naturally

of individual

she would have ended up having

before they do.

is restricted

if any two nonsyllabics

example, * arinz ication

must increase

of a syllable.

is impossible,

which

applies

from the fact that syllabication

condition

this

himself with.

and this dependency seems

to explain why syllabication

But the re-applications

follows

to divert

However,

function

other

to speculations

why Processes

would result

of context-free

It would be

they depend as they do on syllabication.

specific

configurations

occurs only in interior 14).

have to appeal

to explain

application

•

to show why, given the phonetic functions

they do depend on syllabication,

Given the

optional

sa~N,nai Sinai).

these processes,

is that

organization

vowel-

_a-harmony is near) Y

obligatory

possible

and

otherwise

or

We do not

flapping

otherwise

syllables

signer,

{INN

on

toutos

1labic

In a word like bar.ou.irlor

glide

of

sonorants and

borrowing,

bar.o.wioou , derived

of the nasalization

process

in a complex pattern

of

h

i 64 ,;b' ar,ou. bar.ou.V I

65

i ,

*b ar.o.wiO

irl

* bar.o.wIO

N

bar.ou.N

I

i

I NN bar.ou .~w I N

N N

bar.ou,

N

the

bar.o, N w r~ r l

But this

I

fudge derivation,

applications

are

by the lack

quite

sentation since it

i.e,

to reason

that

the

unaFPlied

The correct

unrestricted prior

of sounds it will

these

forms

application to a nasalized the process

even when the

sequence

due to the application

in derived

this

and of their

on which its

To

application

depends.

to justify

it

doesn't

segment.

despite

And

apical its

could

sequential explain

why

I

simplicity,

this

The constituent

sequence

by their

separate

and they

occur

of the selfsame

I

to

z

in sequence,

the separate

sequenced

iterative

is itself

evidence

given

distinctness

lies

in the assumption

governed

b

which the language

the sound patterns possible

as a simultaneously

that

The explanation

is

should be the case. substitutions

are

learner-the

child-formulates

of the language

he is learning.

to formulate applied

rule,

any sequence the rule

the

predetermined the

reason

is almost

of these

should naturally

But

as is shown

speech as it matures fact

that

the change of

Indeed

the fact

along

simultaneous

formulation

processes,

limitations

z

is incorrect.

can be explained,

the generalized

are

making voicedd into

to [z].

the simultaneous

by distinct they

Jand

processes

rule

and distinct,

from a child's

it

above from Joan

formulation

as is shown by the

I, whereas that

cited

are separate

a change of

Besides

simultaneously

simultaneous

best

of processes

as a single z

disappearance

rrandomly-ordered,

been proposed.

J,

substitutions

entails

formulations

be formulated

they are

substitutions.

of substitutions

continuants

to alter,

representations-

simultaneous

The sequence

speech

should be such that

from sequential

that

nonlinear,

the

substitutions

true

in Chapter

I think

is in principle

always

proposed

one may wonder why this

it

application.

may have to include

the problem:

of languages

application

that

Since

describes

of the sequential

so straightforward

for

merely

explanation

has not previously

to account

isn't

that

To my knowledge

rules

rules

rule

which is commonly cited

as resulting

Velten's

. 26 process

reason

sequential

applicable

other

observation

described

oral

aPP1Y not only to that

but also

application,

of all

sound patterns

to any repre-

exists

representation,

of processes,

conditions

more complex.

of the nasaliza-

in underlying

arises

in which

is pronounceable;

from the iteration

a sonorant

is the sequence

stands

simultaneously

application,

i r~

each representation

of an asterisk.

from its

containing

this

remain

straightforwardly

Lion process,

the

of explaining

N N

ba"r.o. wi

no obligatory

result

N

incapable

I

ba"ri oth

indicated

N

^bar.a.w

I

As in the divinity

be sure, NN

bar.o.wir~

~

~ r~

is inherently

rule

is wrong

with distinct

of the innate

the lines cannot, And

functions

speech

capacity,

aPP1Y in a random iterative

sequence

self-evident.

In sequential

applications

of

A creates

input

hypothesis

is called

a feeding

for

another order

such that

process

the output

B A is said

IiiParskY 1968 .

of one process

to 'feed'

The opposite

B and AB order,

BA

66 however,

is the only case

since

as the derivation

order'

is an iterative

order,

no order

processes which

of divinity sequential

The derivation

of the sort

to A's output.

Therefore

sequential

constraint

shows , so-called

given

It

A introduces the ordering

which prevents

that

applicable

grammatical

does not matter

B is allowed

constraint

or,

B from applying

to apply

better,

aanti-

to A's output

For example, midwest

the vowel

sequences meant

r

,

em of

s r i• n

esses

generally

But the

undergo the other

, r e d nr of

further

raising

:-

applies i

mean

by rule,

or

rules,

sri?eti

to certain

e.g.

mint

change i s It ------i

of

for

s

with the

as evidenced

b"ir ~

constrained

i s not n

difficult -L19'4--

> not

to to

__1...

or aPP1Y establish .

to

shortened

that

various

through

other

output

howaver .-1_.. rl~nlnnfiaefinn

9',

,

do

not

words, of

these

that

the

are

bed

altheagh

fact

learned

Such cases

'slurred

alects

and over':

u

etc.,

[days]

trous(ers),

voiced

stops

e.g. e.g.

bud

spoon , b2n

maz

tomorrow , m

she de voiced gto ttalized high-chair.

?ai~

hei ss

[jai

lie

devo iced

obstruents-

final

shoes -except

as did

z

bottle,

derived buz

vowels ,

final ?as

evidence

voiced

from

Napoleon.

, had been pronounced

But at first

clear

when

remained

b

ba P ;

Similarly

Zee

ezns

she had applied

LeoPold 1947:84-5 , and 1939,

are particularly

, cited constraints

the derivative

initial

a jt a

lamb

pr onounced

from nasals

baz

in this

antisequential

z us

derived

peakers.

The examples

Jbut

you beside

Even generalized

s

constrain

own speech .

who deleted s

constraints

from other

often

For example , Joan Velten

Leopold

in sequence:

bett2n

of these di

antisequential

to their

LeoPold

typical.

at first

[h]:

being

that children

word with de nasalized

apparently

speakers

impede their

which are peculiar

position,

Her first

child

that

from the

liquids

deleted

In the

proc-

in final

b£?n

in words whose semantic

are not necessarily

were derivative:

bEriqbett2n Nr en

they

in children. bead

for

Zett2n'' . be noted

I,

b ~n

speech adult

and Alex androv of children

in Chapter

but

bet him

does not

J , and Hildegand

Hildegand

they

r~" nr

as

when they arise

processes,

6rrn ~

mint

of the tongue.

[Or],Nnr

consonant-deletion to

fact

by slips

N/Y be i q

become

7eti

should

Sully

these

for

r

I:n

is evident

occur

segments, , e.g. ~ se

Thus when words like

redden

various

process

processes.

This process

which arise

processes.

threaten,

a

nasal

does not aPP1Y to the same sequences

other

application

of the southern

Lbefore

This is in accordance

aPP1Y after

process

to

tin.

m"in

serene

from various 8 re ? n

ten

from

met with in language.

common to many speakers

Plus nasal

shortened

is occasionally

is raised

t rn a

from

the

such a constraint

,

way processes can

brim

in casual

character

acquired,

This

I

in the dialect

h m hem

are

for

use such pronunciations

Ian It

be viewed a s unnatural. However,

r

le?n,

AB is

of eliminating

{brim]

Furthermore

occasionally

first.

B's function

etc.

in random

when all

have applied.

one may hear

'feeding

of processes

as A and B applies

It only matters

representations

is justified,

terminates

ones

of processes

to BAB.

fudge

'order'

application

or minus optional

of such a pair

equivalent

in which the term

at all.

Plus

bl

and these

glossary).

for the process

theory

of

phonology. The relaxation

of phonetic

change,

of antisequential discovered

constraints

by KiparskY

1965

is a major source 1968)

.

I have sug-

,

,

68 gested

that

impose

constraints

1969.

such

It

changes found

should

be

context-conditioned only

in

heard of

speech in

of of

comparison

n

(e.g.

f"i

and nasalize they

-'- k~enni

style.

27 There

are

however,

such

speech.

Individual

and as

after

n

-'- ka~ci

of course

quite

identical

whichever

applies

some or all

to which

the other

characterized Kisseberth

tendency

B, A is said

1970

there

might aPP1Y.

by KiParskY

may be natural. whether

argue

to 'bleed'

1968 that

is any Preferred

and it

ordering.

the

degree

does.

fact

these

flap

words

so that

ka~ndi

of ~individual .

between involves

fact

is

provided

striking as

the

in

Chapter

the

the

the

require

that

languages

1971

are

has

in these

two processes

vowel

they

of

in such

than

phonetic

emphasized

irregularities

organization

their

various

the in mor-

are

Similarly,

in

high

vowels

voiced),

of

and

but

it

is

and

between

make the

all

vowels

round were

thus

vowels

in

Sanskrit

e.

nonhigh

with and

labial o•

• and

vowels and

were

palatal

so forth.

nonlabial glides

sequential

would

It

is

this

ordering

many other

syllable principle

from are

vowels

which

be pointless.

nonPalatal

umlauted

the

dif-

distinct

between

and nonPalatal

within

as

respective

some obstruents

were

such

discussed

maximally

ordering

palatalized

changes,

in Fox and

transition

vowels

particularly

processes

their

that

which

processes

minimizing

The opposite

Germanic

context-free

Otherwise,

Thus

and thus

round

nasalization

voiceless

difficult).

early

and vowel

given.

be realized.

voiced less

as

are

opposite

of context-conditioned

distinctiveness

obstruents

is

introduce

functions

functions

of processes

teleologies

which

denasalization

be ordered

not

which

front

natural of

sYntogmatic

voiced

nation

both

as one

order

of view I am doubtful

processes

for

as long

by other

may introduce

The paradigmatic

all

is generally

process

(1968,

of processes

functions--maximizing

superficially

and

study

of

I.

against

the

case

example

potential

of another

into

by in

A eliminates

but Kenstowicz

matter

or natural

may be motivated

KiParskY

should this,

a preferred

relationships

ficulties-would

so that

accomplishes

indeed it

it

s . P28 phologicalgmaradi

sonorants

to see why, if

is

In

configuration

process

I suspect

that

of the configurations

point

there

The insight

ha~nn hand).

order

If

which

in

or Finnish

Bleeding

phonetic

purposes

considerations.

I have found no consistent

regarding

a certain

relationships,

often

speakers

of the context

Phonological

substitutions is difficult

B.

them

detailed

configurations

as unnatural,

bleeding

any

One of these

Where Process

From a strictly

in children's

relationships,

eliminates

of

even

relationships

which aPP1Y to partially

to process

I have discussed.

phonetic

in

largely

processes

first

in

sequence,

than

StamPe

are

marked

(e.g.

potential

eliminate

manifest

they

in Italian

is a matter

many other

for

midwestern

speech

be

variation

processes

input

sort

in casual

case

to

apparent

in unconstrained

kaeni

the

nn

the

apt

is

All

degeminate

in

to

children

learning

adults,

phrases becomes

are

are

casual words

of

that

changes

pronunciations.

-

they

and

aPP1Y these

can

failure

children

funny), d

language

out,

dialects,

casual

the

older

various

similar of

Whether

of

in

the

pointed

fluent

reduction

speakers

in

processes

the

only

originate

69

but •, in

before

many

become

velar all languages nasals areanterior, butbefo ve

but

combi-

in

they that

became is

I

r

71

70 responsible

for

'allophones'

,

There of

the

reason

asking answers

riddled

with

better-formulated

speculation

.

that in

to

whereby

systems.

understand

earliest

to

no

What

of

believe

I have

nature

why

such

to

such

error.

can

we know

to be

a basic

questions,

In

exist

if

fact of

in

question they they

are here

explained

organization

systems

But

show

lead cannot

the

or

all

processes

processes. and

and

REFERENCES Albright, Robert W. , and Joy Buck Albright. 1956. of a two-Year-old child. Word 12.382-90.

that

tried

'phonemes'

between

I.

Fhonological

those

the

exists

Chapter

principles

functions

without

and

discussed

better-evidenced

natural can

is

distinction

as

principles

coherent the

the

is

will to be

of

Anderson Stephen R. and the Ordering M.I.T.

we

Baudouin de CourtenaY, Jan. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phone tischer A l terna tionen. StrassburE-Cracow. An abridged translation now appears in Edward Stankiewicz, ed., A Baudouin de Courtenag Anthology , Blooming ton: Indiana University Press 1972.

some of

dismissed

the

whether

systems

place.

better

1969. A study in diachronic morPhoPhonemics: Prefixes. Language 45. 807-30.

that

phonological

surely

Andersen Henning. the Ukrainian

into

doubt

first

most,

organized

terms

in I

even

The phonology

be

Our

Bloomfield

confused

answers, as

or

even

Chen

idle

Leonard.

1969. The West Scandinavian Vowel System o Phonological Rules PhD dissertation,

1933.

Language.

New York:

Holt.

Matthew. 1972. Metarules and universal constraints in Phonological theory. Read to the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna.

ChomskY, Noam. The Hague:

1964. Current Mouton.

Issues

in Linguistic

Theory.

ChomskY, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern English. New York: HarFer and Row.

o

Darden Bill. 1971. Diachronic evidence for phonemics. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting o the Chicago Linguistic Socie 323-31. Edwards Mary Louis. 1970. The acquisition thesis, Ohio State University.

of liquids.

M.A.

Edwardss Mary Louise. 1971. One child's acquisition of English liquids. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 3, Stanford University Committee on Linguistics. Firth

J.R. 1935. The use and description of certain English sounds. Papers in Linguistics 1934-1961. London: Oxford University Press 1957.

Fromkin Victoria utterances. Grammont Maurice. Delagrave.

A. 1971. The non-anomalous Language 46.27-52. 1950.

Traite

de Phonetique.

nature

of anomalous

Paris:

Librairie

,

73

72 Grge zoire , Antoine. 1937. L'ApPrent2ssag thae ue de la Faculto ' de Ph2'losohie p de Li9'e e 73 Halle

Morris.

1954.

The strategy

Hallef

Morris.

1959.

Sound Pattern

Halle

Morris.

1962•

Phonology

Harris,

Ze11ig. University

e du Lana9e. 9 Bibl 'oet Lettres de l'Universito

of phonemics. o

Russian.

in generative

1951. Methods in Structural of Chicago Press.

The Hague: Mouton. grammar.

Word 18.54-72.

Linguistics.

Chicago: Preliminaries

Jakobson Roman and Morris The Hague: Mouton.

o

Jakobson

Roman.

1962.

Selected

1956. Writings

Fundamentals I.

Language.

Mouton: The Hague.

Jakobson Roman. 1968 Child Language, Aphasia, and Phonolo9ical Universals. Tr. A. Keiler. The Hague: Mouton. The 1941 German text is reprinted in Jakobson 1962. Hockett Charles F. 1955. A Manual o Phonolo9y. Memoir 11 of the International Journal o American Linguistics. JesPersen,

Otto.,

1964.

Language.

New York: Norton.

Kenstowicz Michael and Charles Kisseberth. 1970. Unmarked bleeding orders. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting o the Chicago Linguistic Society, 504-19 KiParskY, Paul. M.I.T.

1965.

Phonolog2 'cal

Change.

Ph.D. dissertation

KiParskY, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change, Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms edd., Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York: Halt Rinehart and Winston 170-202. KiParskY: Paul. wall, ed. versity of Kuroda

1911. A Survey Maryland

Sige-Yuki.

1961.

Historical linguistics. o Linguistic Science Press 577-649. Yawelmani

Phonology.

William College

0. DingPark: Uni-

F. 4 vols. 1 1939;

and the description

Cambridge:

1939-49. Speech Development o a Bilingual Evanston: Northwestern University Press. vol. 2 1947.

Writings Press.

of language.

o Edard

Component o

Sa ir. a Grammar

Miller

Patricia Donegan, 1972a. Some context-free processes affecting vowels. Working Papers in Linguistics 11, Ohio State University Department of Linguistics 136-67

Miller

Patricia Donegan. 1972b. Vowel neutralization vowel reduction. Papers from the Eighth Regional o the Chicago Linguistic Socie 482-9.

Ohso

Mieko. 1971. A Phonological study of some English loan words in Japanese. M.A. thesis, Ohio State University.

PassY, Paul. 1890. Paris: Librairie Read

Charles. phonology.

and Meetin C

tude sur les Changements Phonetiaues. Firmin-Didot.

1971. Pre-school children's knowledge of English Harvard Educational Review 41.1-34.

Rhodes Richard. 1972. Natural phonology and MS conditions. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting~' of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 544-57. SaPit,

Edward.

1921.

Language.

view York: Harcourt

Brace.

SaPit,

Edward. 1925. Sound patterns in language. 51. Reprinted in Mandelbaum 1949.

SaPit,

Edward. 1933. The psychological reality of phonemes. First Published in English in Mandelbaum 1949.

SaPtr,

Edward Quarterly

Language 1.37-

1915. Notes on Judeo-German phonology. Jewish Review n s VI, 231-6, Reprinted in Mandelbaum 1949.

Saussure Ferdinand. 1959 A Course in General York: Philosophical Library.

Linguistics.

New

C. 1972. A cross-language study of vowel M.A, thesis Ohio State University.

M.I.T.

Semiloff- Zelasko Holly. 1972. Modern Hebrew fast speech. Werner

Child. Vol.

Phonetics

McCawleY: James D. 1968. The PhonoloCical o Japanese. Mouton: The Hague.

SchouruP, Lawrence nasalization.

Press. LeoPold,

1972.

Mandelbaum D. G, ed. 1949. Selected Berkeley: University of California

Word 10.

Jakobson Roman Gunnar Fant and Morris Halle. 1951. to Speech Analysis. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Ha11e.

Lindblom, BJ orn. Unpublished.

Vowel reduction and loss in M.A. thesis Ohio State University.

74 Smith,

Neil V. 1970. Unpublished.

The acquisition

Stampe, David. 1968. Yes to the Fourth Regional Society.

of phonology:

a case study.

Virginia,... Unpublished paper read Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

Stampe, David 1972 On the natural history of diphthongs. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting o the Chicago Linguistic Society, 578-90. David.

To CHAPTERI: 1

Stampe, David. 1969. The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting o the Chicago Linguistic Society, 443-54.

StainPa

AFTERTHOUGHTS

Forthcoming.

Natural

phonology.

_

P age 3)

Perhaps

Hildegard's

"whispered"

pronunciation

of ,pretty

was not exceptional after all. It may simply have been the regular reflex of an early process devoicing high vowels in syllables with voiceless consonant rather as in Portuguese, Japanese, etc. When she later learned to voice the vowels, the consonants would have assimilated to them in voicing, regularly, and if the r LeoPold transcribed in the whispered pronunciation was, as I suspect, a natural misperception on his part of the stop release it would have seemed to disappear in the voiced pronunciation. This example has received much attention perhaps undeserved in recent literature. 2

Stanley, Richard. 43.393-436. Trubetzko satze.

1961.

Redundancy rules

in phonology.

Language

N. S. 1936. Die Aufhebun der honolo ischen Ce enTravaux du Cercie Linguistique de Prague 6.29-45.

Page 16 This is incomplete. Since t might become c via either d or 8 the entailment is rather that either d or 8 or both would also become . D0ne8an (1978) has discussed this sateSorial property of. Fhonological derivations in more detail and with far richer illustrations. 3P

TrubetzkoY, N. S. 1969. Berkeley: University

Principles o of California

Phonology . Press.

Tr. C. Baltaxe.

V

Twaddel 1, W. F. 1934. On defining the phoneme. Language M nographs. Reprinted in Martin Joosed., Re a1ings in Linguistics, Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1957, 55-79. Twaddell, W. F. 1938. A note on Old High German umlaut Monateheto fur deutsehen Unterricht 30.177-81. Reprinted in Martin Joos, ad., Readings in Linguistics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, 85-7. Velten

Harry in infant

V. 1943. language.

age

The growth of phonemic and lexical Language 19.281-92.

patterns

18 --

I am alluding anasal

to the

1905. Press.

English

Dialect

Grammar.

Oxford:

Oxford

formulation

anasal

Usually, opposite changes reflect distinct Processes with distinct teleolo8ies. As such, the application of one in a language never entails the application of the other. There are languages with context-free denasalization but no contextual nasalization (Japanese, in some descriptions) , and languages with contextual nasalization but no context free denasalization Hindi Changes due to a single process, on the other hand are normally in a relation of unilateral entailment. As noted on page 8, if i is deAalatalized to I.e if it occurs will also be dePalatalized to n under like circumstances. See Done an 1918 for numerous illustrations. 4

Wr ight, Joseph. University

popular

Page 19 Thus languages which aAP1Y vowel denasalization lack nasal vowel phonemes, and also nasal vowel allophones (as in Japanese, in some descriptions) unless as in English) assimilative vowel nasalization also applies. On the other hand, languages which suppress vowel denasalization have nasal vowel phonemes; such languages may also suppress assimilative vowel nasalization as French does, compare bon bonne , or they may aPP1Y it as Hindi does and have some nonnasal as well as nasal vowel phonemes realized as nasal vowel allophones. For every Pair of contrary processes of this sort there are just four possible Phonological typologies (assuming that if the context-free process applies it must aPP1Y before the contextsensitive process.) 75

76

77

5(

page 19) Indeed it can be doubted whether nonadJ' acent ever play a role in p honoloical bfeatures b pro cesses. Since it is y now well established that nondistinctive features often condition changes in distinctive features the way is op en to interpret ~ actions at a distance as involving auditoralY unobtrusive overlaPPings off harmonized vowel features on intervening consonants h , and likewise of armonized consonant features (e .gretroflexion in Sanskrit) on intervening vowels. This would explain why actions at a distance entail the corresponding actions in adjacent segments , as e. Old Hi gh German palatal umlaut as in manna > menu(i) 'men' entailed stain > stein 'stone'; we would posit an 1-colored in manna . This is a recurrent hypothesis in historical phonology , it has g be en given up too readily in the face of surprising examples . I see no reason why even consonant harmonies like Pibi t .v. or Qa9i ] do ie in child speech could not be explained in this way; it is the timbre not the stoPPedness , of the consonants which would be posited on the intervening vowels, and I see no aAriori reason why the adjustments of lip and tongue musculature accompanying obstruents might not co-occur, uunobtrusively to the ear , with the rather different adjustments accompanying vowels . 6 Page 21) A simpler hypothesis regarding hub home beside ham ham would be that Joan pronounced hu . as ~u as e. g. in J apanese since ~] would not be nasalized and would therefore cause progressive denasalization. Ve1ten' s phonemic analysis does not give ' phonetic detail , and the notes on which it was based seem n o longer to exist.

case ee

they differ phonetically (which is dubious in the or ee or occur in distinct prosodic constituents

case

..

geminate

consonants

on either

side of a syllable

of e.g.

division}.

Donegan 1978 shows clearly that monoPhthongization is not a separate process but simply the end product of the mutual assimilation of the features of a diphthong. This is in accordance with the natural segmentation hypothesis sketched in note 7. 10

Page 25) The aPPlicational Precedence of context-free processes before contrary context-sensitive processes seems to be a special case of a much more general constraint Donegan and I 1979 have presented as "Fortition first lenition last". 11 { Page 25 Some further discussion and evidence has now been published in section 4 of Donegan and StamPe 1919. 12 P age 26) The re-analysis of the place of denasalization in Joan's speech proposed above in note 7 is consistent with an absolute interpretation of this constraint. Done8an and I 1919: section 3) have argued for such an interpretation, extended from pairs of contrary Processes to all paradigmatic and sYntagmatic processes °'Fortitions first lenitions last") . For example, a fortition like the vowel aPenthesis in boated batted could not succeed a lenition like the voice assimilation in knst kissed and thus * bntat could not be derived (through these processes) . This constraint is extremely restrictive, barring analyses of a wide variety, including

1

Pa ge 21 The application of context-free vowel nasalization as 6 after context-sensitive nasahzation 1 is a counterexample to the precedence constraint proposed between these types of processes on page 23f. I suspect that Joan's actual pronunciations were as in 5 rather than as in 6 • v.elten would simply have ignored vowel nasalzzation where it was obviously contextually conditioned as in 5 Joan did denasalize vowels , as in na_ for French non (specifically remarked) and a is for nets ants , but there is no reason this could not have b een prior to vowel nasalization at 1 This eliminates the counterexample. Page 22 Left out of this account are processes of PaZatalization the opposite of DePalatalization , Tensing, and its opposite, Laxing. Diphthongiza tion can be eliminated being simply an application of one of the other processes to half of a vowel . The vowel research of Donegan (formerly Miller is brought together in Donegan 1978. The asegmen tai hypothesis of Donegan and StamPa 1918 and StamPe 1979, according to which processes have only prosodic domains e .g. syllables, or syllable constituents; measures or measure constituents etc. , and never segmental ones carries with it a natural segmentation hypothesis that adjacent phonetic segments are distinct only in

? those KiParskY sought to elim in

paper of 1968, and explaining why alternations of the divine divinity type where historically, the sYntagmatic shortening of the stressed vowel in triplet words preceded the paradigmatic vowel shift and diPhthongization cannot, despite ChomskY and Halle 1968,be part of the synchronic natural phonology of a language. For further discussion see the notes on 'bleeding order' under Chapter II. 13

Page 21 The characterization of the difference between phonemes and allophones in structural phonology in terms of criteria like 'contrast' 'comPlementa ~' distribution' , 'phonetic similarity', and so forth has been effectively criticized by ChomskY 1964, Postal 1968, and earlier by Bazell 1954. No such criteria figure in the present characterization. In natural phonology, a sound is a phoneme if and only if not all its occurrences can be derived naturally i.e. through natural interactions of active natural processes of the language) from other sounds. Thus a language learner will take the nasal vowel of a form mi to derive from a nonnasal vowel by Progressive nasalization from /m/, or regressive nasalization from a deleted following nasal rather than learn to produce the vowel deliberate)Y , as nasal. But if the language presents him with forms like [pa], which entails the suppression of progressive nasalization; or en which entails the suppression of regressive nasalization; o r even en which entails the suppression of a process deleting a

7s

79

final nasal--so that there remains no natural derivation of the vowel of [ml] from any source but /1/, then the learner can only Perceive this vowel as deliberately (phonemically) nasal and must learn to pronounce it as such. This criterion of natural derivability obviates reference not only to the structuralist criteria but also to the increasingly ad hoc and complex criteria of generative phonology ZwickY 1972 lists ~ about thirty of these). It furnishes an irreducible account of the acquisition of phonology, in which often a single form will suffice to show the child that a certain sound is phonemic in the language he is learning, • compare the zeka example on page aye 29 (However, if it makes matters simple for the child it does not do so for the linguist, since to aPP1Y the criterion of natural derivability requires the linguist to understand fully the processes and derivations in question. At the same time the criterion seems to me to capture the sort of phonemic representation that the structuralists aimed at but which their criteria failed to characterize adequately. It allows for example, for desirable non-linear mappings like kit with ikmnt can't non-invariant mappings like the flap of 8rithree with In / and the flap . of Eci rEdd.~. with Id!, and so forth (compare ChomskY 1964 . And it quite naturally rules outmaPPingswhichthe structuralists could rule out only with vague or ad hoc criteria like the identification o f the complementary h and ~ of English) since there is no natural process which makes initial /n! into h or final /h into rI (compare Bazell 1954). 14

P age 28)

See footnote

14 of the preceding

paper.

15P

age 31 I am assuming that, in the absence of auxiliary hypotheses, obstruents represented as unspecified as to voicing would surface, once the process that previously governed their surface voice specification was suppressed, as randomly voiced or voiceless. This assumption seems to surprise adherents of the archisegmental theory, I suspect because they did not consider it to have any empirical consequences. 16 Page 32 This example may be a bad one because it is difficult to show that all qs are naturally derivable from /n! Plus velar in current English, in the face of examples like singer versus linger, ._ and because tests designed to get at the psychological ~ situation give conflicting results in this case. But it is a clear example, and the facts clearly held true in earlier English, and they are commonplace in many languages. Or one can substitute the dental of plinth for throughout the discussion. Some writers on natural phonology have presented it as having all neutralizing processes aPP1Y prior to all non-neutralizing Processes. But the reverse situation is quite commonplace. For example, the nonneutralizing devoicing .~ of final vowels in Yana women's speech fed a neutralization of preceding voiced stops with voiceless ones SaPit

1929)•

the

optional,

non-neutralizing

monoPhthong'zation ~.

of Kabardian

/9w/to o feeds an obligatory neutralization of preceding nonlabialized stops with labialized ones KuiP ers 1960); ~ and in English non-neutralizing vowel deletion as in poatsrl panting feeds nonneutralizing neutralizing flapping Paecl' and in turn a neutralizing progressive ~ nasalization so that panting = .pBf' ~ = Pannign . Examples like this show that the phonemic representation of an utterance does not necessarily occur in its derivation from its lexical representation. Thus in /Pant iq/ ' /PatT / -' pHei i .poari , the phonemic representation of panting which like that of panning, would be !aen i / ) does not occur. But it may be noted that panting and annin have identical "rhyme fields" (planning , scanning, chanting, etc.), are often spelled alike by children who are unfamiliar with the morphophonemic conventions of English spelling, etc. , and in fact would be represented alike in the memory of any speaker who did not happen to know from ant, ants etc.) that panting has a t in it". It may be helpful to think of phonemic representation not as a level but as the most "concrete" (superficial) representation of a form which is accessible to the phonetically unsophisticated speaker's awareness. This of course follows SaPir's characterization of the phoneme as a PercePt,) Then it must follow that allophones can find no place in lexical representation: what is not perceived cannot be recorded in memory. 17 Page 35) As this shows, the line of argument that Ha11e followed with his Russian example above demonstrating that the phonemic level does not correspond to a natural break in a linearordered set of "rules" applies equally to the morphophonemic level. What is refuted is not the phoneme, but Halle's conception of the structure of a phonology. 18

Page 37 HooPer 1975 has attempted to refute this argument by citing the tradition in some Celtic languages of writing sP etc. with sb etc. and noting that Gaelic beach 'bee' is augmented to sbeach 'wasp'. I.do not understand the difference between English and most other languages and Celtic in this respect but the fact remains that in all languages there is a specific identification of the stop afters with a particular value of the (neutralized) feature. Whether every language makes the same identification is not at issue. 19 20

Page 39

. Updated in her dissertation

Donegan 1978).

Page 42 It should be pointed out that Joseph Greenberg, in his outstanding work on universals of language, has increasingly turned to processes to explain synchronic systems, and likewise Alan Bell Larry HYman, and others in Greenberg's tradition. But Greenberg's exclusively diachronic conception of processes seems to ignore the existence of the teleologies underlying change in the synchronic system of a language. It is typical in language change that, before the old gives ~ way to the new, they co-exist as regional,

80

81

social, or stylistic variants. In variants of a single sPBaker , such as those cited in Chapter II for the phrase divinity fudge _~ , we find a continuum ranged from the "clearest" to the "most pronoun ceable" forms. This is typical of variants over synt agmatic processes; variants over paradigmatic processes, such as the following forms of head observed by Donegan and me in the speech of natives of the Great Smoky Mountains are ranged in the opposite order: hed -i head head head -• he aad [haled] . Here the „ later forms are the "clearest limited in most older speakers just to emphatic speech, though children often use the least conservative forms and this is true both of .paradigmatic and sYntagmatcc derivatives ) in their everyday speech. 21 ( page 47. Further differences between rules and processes may be illustrated by the rule adjusting the pronunciation of the latina to prefix inim- It:-, etc) versus the process assimilating alveolar stops including nasals to the point of articulation of a following stop. I The rule is limited to a specific morpheme. The process applies regardless of morphological identities . 2) The rule is obligatory (*polite , * ~.nrelevant ,the process i s obligatory only wit hen a stress-measure *'un *u' n cle and n wider domain s is optional and deP endentt on style careful i nl ut versus casual i m ut . 3 The rule applies before any Processes and before the point in speech processing when tongue-slips occur. The process applies afterward. Cf.. Page 65. 4) The rule refers only to phonemes, never to allophones . It does not change _in- before velars (incompetent) as it does before labials (impossible) because ~ is or was in Latin an allophone while m/ is (and was in Latin a Phoneme . The In in incompetent optionally becomes q but it is the process that brings this about ,

as it optionally changes n to rm in in Paris. The process to features, and operates on completely novel combinations of e.g. in borrowed words or phonetic exercises like at' obala aaIa ) as well as native phonemes. 5) The rule is insensitive to prosodic structure e.8to stress placement im ~.ous, im ious}. The process operates on prosodic rather than segmental domains, as in ka~nt ,9o kaa k.9o (*ka~nk.9o) can't o •iDd.rnt .9o u9. k.9o f Od.nk9 . o ud) k9. o) should n g o,, where strings of alveo a r stops within a stress-measure are assimilated entirely or not at all, as if the strings constituted a single long alveolar stop segment. See Done8an and Stampe 1978. 6) Historically, the rule was borrowed with the morphemes it applies to, and did not extend to new morphemes. The process, a native constraint, affects all borrowed morphemes. 7 Systematic phonemic representations Chomsky 1964), i.e. representations whose derivations require the agency of rules as well as processes, fail every test I know that might establish their psychological reality. This is in striking contrast to phonemic and morphophonemic rep resentations whose derivations require only processes. For example, two words rhyme if they match in phonemic representation

from their stressed syllabics to the end of the word e .g. lens . bends readin : meeting, mix: sixths if pronounced /s~ks/ step _ ), etc. -Morphophonemic identity is not leapt if pronounced / I eP sufficient without phonemic identity: banned ,hand rhyme only if the latter is not pronounced /hmn etc . But morphophonemic identity is preferred: rhymes like readin :needin are referred over reading meeting, and are more frequent. Systematic phonemic identity , however, is totally irrelevant: rhymes like line , • signn (cf. signal) , revision : division (cf. revise divide), cram damn cf. damnation) are not perceived as differing from those with matched systematic phonemic representations. This suggests strongly that rules do not operate on representations in the way that processes do and casts doubt on the appropriateness of a Process model" for rules. The rhyme test from my unpublished paper on the phoneme, 'Yes Virginia ...' 1968 ,also shows that phonetic identity is immaterial. Words with phonemically Identical rhymes rhyme perfectly even if they are pronounced differently , e.g.. if mat and cat are pronounced may and kae' . But words without phonemically identical rhymes do not rhyme even if they are pronounced exactly alike, e. g. if mat and pad are both pronounced as aec] in the verse. Upon a mat Upon a Pad A Yellow cat Serenely sat.

This would follow, of course if allophonic properties of sounds not perceived.) For further discussion of the rule/process distinction see Donegan and Stampe 1979 sections 2, 4).

are

22

exactly refers these akp

,

P'age 55 The unordered sequential iterative hypothesis of process application presented in this dissertation is basically identical to the one I proposed, on weaker evidence, in notes 1 12, and 14 of the precedingpaper. If Anderson's dissertation of the same year is intended to allow iterative ABA application, which is not clear to me then his hypothesis of 'local ordering' was identical to mine except in its preference for counterbleeding over bleeding order after KiParskY 1968. For a review of some of the subsequent developments in ordering ~' theory, together with a revised hypothesis of ordering in natural phonology, see Donegan ~ and Stampe 1979 section 3). 23

Aage 57 For what I hope understanding of the syllable, see and I have stuck by the notation boundaries .) rather than, as has them as trees because we know of cannot universally be deduced from of the constituent segments.

represents some progress in m Y Donegan and Stampe 1978. Donegan of syllables simply by marking their become fashionable, representing no evidence that their structure the relative order and sonority

V

82

83 i

One idea in the present work that still seems to me worth pursuing is the conception of syllable-division, re-syllabication, and desyllabication as a single integrated process.

derivative representations (excepting, as noted rule-derived ones), or they apply to all of them. Numerous additional examples are given in Donegan and StamPe 1979: section 3. Further consequences of the simultaneous iterative interpretation are presented in note 28 after the discussion of feeding and counterfeeding application.

24

page 57 It is the prosodic domain of flapping that accounts for the main differences between speakers. Those who flap in the offset of syllables flapa only the first t of entity (ent.i.ty): those who flap in the offset of stress-measures a group of syllables beginning ~ with a stressed syllable and ending before another stressed syllable) flap both _t's: and so on up to t hose who flap apical stops at least if they are voiced) even in the onset off stressed syllables as in the doctor, or today.

28

,

25

pa a 60) The relative independence of laryngeal, nasal position and color features has not been given sufficient attention. But although I do not think this explanation of the "counterbleeding" relation of vowel nasalization and (nasal) flap deletion is wrong,~ another more general explanation follows from the proposal that processes apply simultaneously Donegan and StamPe 1979: see note 27 below). In this case da.v'r.a~ ti would change in one step to de.vl.e.ti so that deletion could not bleed nasalization. 26

_

,

Page 64 On an asegmental or prosodic view of Phonological processing Donegan h and StamPa 1978, StamPe 1979), a process nasalizing sonorants--insofar as it does not distinguish among kinds of sonorants--would read the long string of sonorants in borrowing as a single sonorant and would nasalize the whole string in one step. The length of the string nasalized would depend on the length of the string input and the rosodic domain of the nasalization process. Of the pronunciations cited, the first admissible one in each column corresponds to a syllable, and the last to a stress-measure. The intermediate pronunciations correspond to two syllables, or all the posttonic syllables, or some such domain which I doubt is a natural constituent of the prosodic structure of this word. I suspect that mY previous inability to rule out the intermediate pronunciation led me to consider it admissible it seems obvious in either event that my judgment is not to be trusted here. Compare also note 21 part 5.) 27 Page 68 The entire discussion of sequential application of processes here is subject to a quite different interpretation. Feeding would result not only from sequential iterative application, but also from simultaneous iterative application, where all processes apply at once, and then all re-apply, and so forth. On this view, a counterfeeding constraint would he not a constraint on the ordering of a pair of rocesses that one process may not follow the other), but as a no-iteration constraint that one may not reapply) . This has the interesting consequence that no process could be both fed and counterfed. Note that this is precisely the situation= hitherto unexplained, described in the text with regard to the process raising E before nasals P. 66f and the process devoicing final obstruents in Joan Velten`s speech P. 67 : these processes either aPP1Y to no

o

Page 69 Since this was written most of the diachronic examples that seemed to involve a change from bleeding to counterbleeding application have been discredited (by Koutsoudas et al., Vennemannt and others). The inescapable conclusion seems to be that bleeding and counterbleeding application are not language-specific options. But the theory I Presented in the text provides no way of predicting when one or the other will occur, and the available hypotheses seem in one way wa or another incompatible with natural phonology. For example, 's "opacity" Yhypothesis 1971 KiParsk Y Presupposes that all h processes are learned. The simultaneous iterative hypothesis presented in note 27 Predicts that, in the absence of universal priority constraints, no process could bleed another. As pointed out in note 25, this is often the desired prediction. But Kisseherth and Kenstowicz's numerous examples of bleeding order require some restrictions of priority. We have in natural phonology two universal priority constraints which are well-evidenced: rules before processes, and fortitions before lenidons note 12 Applied to the simultaneous hypothesis, the latter constraint predicts that a fortition will bleed any lenition it can see the example of batted in note 12) . This most frequently occurs when the forte~.'t'on separates an assimilating and an assimilated seg"bleedinQ the context" of the assimilation , as Kisseberth thus"bleeding thement, context" of theassimilation as Kisseb and Kenstowicz put it P. 68 above).

I

i 84

ADDITIONAL

Bazell:

C. E. A. Martinet 10 PP.

1954. and 6-15.

Donegan, Patricia Ohio State Donegan>

The choice of criteria in structural linguistics. U. Weinreich3 edd. ! Li uistics Today = Word New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.

Jane. University

Patricia

Jane

Phonological HooPer edd. North-Holland.

REFERENCES

1978. On the Natural Working Papers in and

David

and prosodic Sy llables

StamPe.

1978.

structure. and Segments

,

Donegan Patricia Jane and David StamPe. natural phonology. Daniel A. Dinnsen to Phonological Theory! PP. 126-173. University Press. Hooper,

Joan

B.

1975.

phonology.

The

Language

archisegment

Phonology Linguistics, The

Alan Bell pp. 25-34.

syllable

in

and Joan BYbee Amsterdam:

1979. The ed., Current Bloomington:

in

o Vowels. No. 23.

natural

study of Approaches Indiana

generative

51:536-560.

KiParskY! Paul. 1968. How abstract is phonology? Published 1973 in 0. Fu'imura ed. Three Dimensions o Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC. Kou.tsoudasa

Andreas,

Phonological

et rules.

KuiPers,

Aert. 1960. Hague: Mouton.

Postal

Paul HarFer

SaPit, In StainPa,

M. and

1968. Row.

al.

1974.

and

Aspects

o

Morpheme

Theo.

ZwickY! Arnold W. Dr essler 151-168.

1974. grammar. Linguistics, University M.

Phonological R

Shu pp. Press.

in

Phonolo9ical

Edward. 1929. Male and female Mandelbaum ed. 1949:206-212.

generative Tomorrow's Georgetown

application

of

50:1-28.

Phoneme

David. 1979. Domains. Texas Austin March 1979.

Venneman

On the

Language

Talk

of

at

J.

New York:

speech

the

concreteness and C. 202-219.

The

Theorij.

forms

given

Kabardian.

Yana.

University

in

BaileY, Washington,

1912. The strategy of generative and F. V. Mares edd.! Phonolo 9 ica Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1975.

in

of

natural edd.,

Toward D.C.:

phonology. 1972, , pp.