Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:26:59.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ordering paradoxes in phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

B. E. Newton
B. E. Newton
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages, Simon Fraser University, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. It may be claimed that current views regarding the nature of sound change fall into two broad categories: the more traditional attitude would treat an individual sound change as a complex trend or process taking perhaps several generations to establish itself, and then retaining its activity over a long period of time; whence the characteristic concern of classical historical linguistics with the establishment of absolute and relative termini post and ante quern, i More recently adherents of the generative–transformational school have interpreted sound changes as readjustments in the system of phonological rules; thus Postal (1968: 270) claims:

‘What really changes is not sounds but grammars. And grammars are abstract objects – sets of rules represented in human organisms.’

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 31 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andriotis, N. P. (1939). De quelques faits phonétiques du dialecte moderne de Samothrace. Archeîon tû Thrakikû laographikû kai glossikû thesaurû, 6.Google Scholar
Budonas, E. (1892). Melétē perì taû glōssikoû idiō´matos Belbentoû kaì tôoˇn perichō´rōn autoû. Athens: N. G. Inglesis.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1967). The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34. 115–136.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. M. (1916). Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karanastasis, A. (1963). Hē phōnētikē´ tôˇn idiōmátiōn tē´s nē´sou Kôoˇ. Lexikographikon Deltion, 10.Google Scholar
Kostakis, Th. P. (1968). Tò glōssikò idíōma têˇs Síllēs. Kéntro Mikrasiatikôoˇn Spoudôoˇn. Athens.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1968). The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.). Directions for historical linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.)., Directions for historical linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar