Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T14:11:55.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the formal expression of natural rules in phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

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

Extract

While the notion of naturalness or plausibility has been a tacit guiding principle for past generations of phonologists, the effort to accord the notion of naturalness a theoretical status and to incorporate this notion into the descriptive formalism of a linguistic theory was a major innovation by the generative school. In accordance with what we may refer to as the ‘formalness condition’, the generativist requires that the substantive naturalness of a phonological process be explicitly recognizable in the very formalism used to state the process. The lively interest in and the on-going search for a ‘natural’ phonology is very much in evidence, witness, e.g., the titles of papers presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1973 , pp. 223 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Burger, M. (1964). La nasalisation spontanée dans les dialectes de la plaine vaudoise et fribourgeoise: conditions et extension du phenomène. RLR 28. 290–306.Google Scholar
Cairns, C. E. (1969). Markedness, neutralization, and universal redundancy rules. Lg 45. 863–885.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Nasals and nasalization. Paper presented at the 1970 Linguistic Society of America Meeting, Washington, D.C. (Oral version appeared in MIM [Monthly Internal Memorandum, Phonology Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley], December issue.)Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1971a). A note on binary features, simplicity metric, and marking conventions. MIM June–July issues.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1971b). Metarules and universal constraints in phonological theory. POLA [Project on Linguistic Analysis, Phonology Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley] 13. 1–54. (Preliminary version, prepared for presentation at the XIth International Congress of Linguists, Bologna, Italy, August–September 1972.)Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1971c). Predictive power in phonological description. Paper presented at the First Annual California Linguistics Conference, May 1971, Berkeley. (Oral version appeared in MIM May 1971 issue.)Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1972). Nasals and nasalization in Chinese: explorations in phonological universals. (To appear in the Monographs on linguistic analysis series, The Hague/Paris: Mouton.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. JL 1. 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968). The sound pattern of English [SPE]. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1971). Some constraints on phonological change. Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1971. 340–349.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1971). A sample research strategy in language universals. Working papers on language universals 6. 1–22. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Foley, J. (Ms.) Systematic morphophonology. Unpublished monograph, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1970). The concept of ‘naturalness’ in a universal phonetic theory. Glossa 4. 29–45.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1961). On the role of simplicity in linguistic description. In Jakobson, R. (ed.), Structure of language and its mathematical aspects. Providence: American Mathematical Society. 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1943). Prolegomena to a theory of language. (English translation by Whitfield, F. J.) Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.Google Scholar
House, A. S. & Stevens, K. N. (1956). Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels. JSHD 21. 220–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. (1939). Les lois phoniques du langage enfantin et leur place dans la phonologie générale. Appendix to Trubetzkoy, N. (tr. Cantineau, J.) Principes de phonologie. Paris: Klincksieck, 1949. 367–379.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. In Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets Förhandlingar, 1940–42. Uppsala. 1–83.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stockwell, R. & Macaulay, R. (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 101–171.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. (1970). Why and how does vowel nasalization take place? Papers in linguiitics 2. 179–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. (1971). Monitoring soft palate movements in speech. POLA 13. 1–15.Google Scholar
Pope, M. K. (1966). From Latin to Modern French with especial consideration of Anglo-Norman. 2nd ed.Manchester: University of Manchester PressGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1969). Natural assimilation rules in Akan. IJAL 35. 342–355.Google Scholar
Schane, S. (1971). Natural rules, strategies, and language change. In Tsiapera, M. (ed.), Generative studies in historical linguistics. 55–72.Google Scholar
Schourup, L. (1972). Two aspects of vowel nasalization. Presented at the summer Linguistic Society of America meeting, 28 July 1972.Google Scholar
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1949). On the simplicity of descriptions. TCLC 5. 61–70.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (to appear). On chapter nine. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Straka, G. (1955). Remarques sur les voyelles nasales, leur origine et leur évolution en français. RLR 19. 245–274.Google Scholar
Straka, G. (1965). Naissance et disparition des consonnes palatales dans l'évolution du latin au français. In TLL 3. 117–167.Google Scholar
Streeter, M. (1971). DOC: 1971. Computers and the humanities 6. 259–270. (Also in POLA 15. 63–138).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wada, T. et al. (1970). An approach for the cinefluorographic study of articulation movements. Cleft Palata Journal 7. 506–522.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. (1970a). Project DOC: its methodological basis. JAOS 90. 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. (1970b). On evaluating phonological naturalness. MIM July issue.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. (1971). Approaches to English phonology. POLA 13. WWI–41. (To appear in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Current trends in linguistics (The Hague: Mouton), vol 10.)Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1968). Naturalness arguments in syntax. Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society 4. 94–102.Google Scholar