Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-s74w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T16:26:47.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abductive and Deductive Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Henning Andersen
Henning Andersen*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article takes as its point of departure an unusual phonological change in a Czech dialect. It then proposes a model of phonological change which would make possible the understanding of structural innovations in the phonology of a homogeneous speech community. The model, which distinguishes two logically different modes of change (abductive and deductive), helps clarify the essential difference between ‘internally motivated’ change and change ‘induced from without’. The model uses our experience of observed phonetic changes, and may consequently have some bearing on our understanding of the structure of phonology.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 765 - 793
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 by Linguistic Society of America

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

Andersen, Henning. 1969a. Lenition in Common Slavic. Lg. 45.553–574.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1969b. A study in diachronic morphophonemics: the Ukrainian prefixes. Lg. 45.807–830.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1969c. Indo-European voicing sandhi in Ukrainian. Scando-Slavica 15.157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1972. Diphthongization. Lg. 48.11–50.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1974. Bifurcating changes and binary relations. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, to appear.Google Scholar
Bělič, Jaromír. 1966. K otázce zaniklého litomyšlského t, d, n za někdejší p', b', m'. (Slavica Pragensia 8; Acta Univ. Carolinae, Philologica, 1–3.) Prague: NČAV.Google Scholar
Brandenstein, W. 1951. Kurze Phonologie des Lateinischen. Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache, by Franz Altheim, 481–498. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1960. Die englische Sprache, ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung, I. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Franklin S., Delattre, Pierre C., Liberman, Alvin M., Borst, John M.; and Gerstman, Louis J. 1952. Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. JASA 24.597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1958. Sincronía, diacronía e historia: el problema del cambio lingüístico. Montevideo: Universidad de la República.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1962. Sistema, norma y habla. In his Teoría del lenguaje y lingüística general, pp. 11–113. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Emmet, Dorothy. 1958. Function, purpose, and powers. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fant, C. Gunnar, M. 1960. Acoustic theory of speech production. (Description and analysis of Contemporary Standard Russian, 2.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fónagy, I. 1956. Über den Verlauf des Lautwandels. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6.173–278.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. (Description and analysis of Contemporary Standard Russian, 1.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18.54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horecký, Ján. 1949. Fonologia latinčiny. Bratislava: SAVU.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1928. O hláskoslovném zákonu a teleologickém hláskosloví. Časopis pro Moderní Filologii 14.183–184. [Translated in Jakobson 1962:1–2.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1931. Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie. TCLP 4.247–267. (Revised version, Principes de phonologie historique, published as appendix, pp. xv–xxix, to Principes de phonologie, by N. S. Troubetzkoy, Paris 1949; reprinted in Jakobson 1962:202– 20.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1938. Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes. Proc. 3rd Intl. Congr. Phonetic Sciences, 33–41. Ghent. [Reprinted in Jakobson 1962:272–9.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1939. Zur Struktur des Phonems. Lecture, University of Copenhagen. [First published in Jakobson 1962:280–310.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Selected writings I: phonological studies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1965. Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes 51.21–37. [Reprinted in his Selected writings II: word and language, pp. 345–59. The Hague: Mouton, 1967.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Harms, R. T., 171–204. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Komárek, Miroslav. 1958. Historická mluvnice česká I: hláskosloví. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Koneski, Blaze. 1967. Istorija na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje: Kultura.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1970. The study of language in its social context. Studium Generate 23.30–87.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1968. A phonetic study of West African languages. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lundell, J. A. 1890. Étude sur la prononciation russe: compte-rendu de la littérature, 1. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., Galanter, Eugene; and Pribram, Karl H. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirčev, Kiril. 1963. Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik. 2nd ed. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.Google Scholar
Panov, M. V. 1967. Russkaja fonetika. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1940. The philosophy of Peirce: selected writings. Ed. by Buchler, Justus. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1966. Selected writings. Ed. by Wiener, Philip P. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Ralkov, Lal'o. 1933. Govorni različija meždu mladi i stari. (Kăm dialekti na văzrastnite v Trojansko: prexod x-f.) Rodna Reč 6.215–217.Google Scholar
Reilly, Francis E. 1970. Charles Peirce's theory of scientific method. (Orestes Brownson series, 7). New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safarewicz, Jan. 1969. Historische lateinische Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Selišcev, A. M. 1918. Očerki po makedonskoj dialektologii, 1. Kazan'.Google Scholar
Sommer, Ferdinand S. 1913. Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stojkov, Stojko. 1962. Balgarska dialektologija. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.Google Scholar
Ušakov, D. N. 1928. Zvuk g frikativnyj v russkom literaturnom jazyke v nastojašěee vremja. Sbornik Otdelenija Russkogo Jazyka i Slovesnosti 101:3.238–240.Google Scholar
Utěšeny, Slavomír. 1960. Nářečí přechodného pásu česko-moravského: hláskosloví. Prague: Nakladatelství ČAV.Google Scholar
Walde, A., and Hofmann, J. B. 1938. Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch, vol. I. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin I. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar