Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-9kl9f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-15T14:50:09.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rule Insertion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert D. King
Robert D. King*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The claim that Rule insertion—rule addition anywhere in the middle of a grammar—is a possible type of phonological change is considered and rejected. Some putative cases of Rule insertion are shown to reduce to rule re-orderings governed by revised constraints on re-ordering; others involve non-controversial rule addition prior to the phonetic rules of a grammar; remaining cases of apparent Rule insertion are the fictitious consequence of incorrect analyses. New phonological rules can be added at only one point: at the end of the phonological rules but prior to the low-level phonetic rules.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 551 - 578
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

Brame, Michael K. 1972. On the abstractness of phonology: Maltese?. Contributions to generative phonology, ed. by Brame, Michael K., 22–61. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34.115–136.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Review of Aspects of phonological theory, by Paul M. Postal. Lg. 46.116–125.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, David. 1969. Why the Slavic ‘second palatalization’ comes first. Papers from the 5th Regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 306–313.Google Scholar
Cooley, Marianne. 1972. Velars in English: a diachronic generative analysis. University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Crothers, John. 1971. On the abstractness controversy. (Project on linguistic analysis, reports, 2nd series, no. 12.) Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Demers, Richard. 1971. Rule insertion in Alemannic. MS.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1971. An alleged case of non-chronological Rule insertion. LI 4.597–599.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18.54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1971. English stress. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert T. 1972. Some non-rules of English. MS.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1970. On the order of certain phonological rules in Spanish. MS.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 1970. Gemination, breaking, and re-ordering in the synchronic phonology of Old English. Lingua 28.48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holthausen, F. 1921. Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1970. How concrete is phonology? Lg. 46.58–76.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles W. 1971. Unmarked bleeding orders. MS.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1940. Suomen murrekartasto. (Suomen murteet, III. A. murrekartasto.) Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1968. Root versus suffix accent in the Germanic present indicative. JL 4.247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1970. Can rules be added in the middle of grammars? MS.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1971a. How constrained is phonological change? Unpublished lecture, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1971b. Syncope and Old Icelandic i-umlaut. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 84.1–18.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1972. A Note on opacity and paradigm regularity. LI 3.535–539.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1967. À propos de l'histoire de l'accentuation grecque. Langages 8.73–93.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1968a. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals of linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 171–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1968b. How abstract is phonology? Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, W. O., 577–649. College Park: Linguistics Program, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1969. On the abstractness of phonology. Papers in Linguistics 1.248–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1972. The vowel length alternation in Klamath: a global rule. MS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1965. Studies in diachronic transformational syntax. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kökeritz, Helge. 1953. Shakespeare's pronunciation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1958. L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes. Wroclaw–Kraków: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1967. A remark on Lachmann's Law. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72.295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1970. On Lachmann's Law, liquid dissimilation, and rhotacism in Latin. MS.Google Scholar
Miranda, Rocky V. 1971. How do rules get added in the middle of grammars? MS.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann, and Mitzka, W. 1966. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. Comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: LSA.Google Scholar
Rapola, Martti. 1966. Suomen kielen äännehistorian luennot. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Lg. 49.87–106.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44.695–708.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1970a. A further remark on Lachmann's Law. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74.55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1970b. A case of nonchronological Rule insertion. LI 1.525–527.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, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wyld, Henry C. 1936. A history of modern colloquial English. 3rd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1970. Greek-letter variables and the Sanskrit ruki-class. LI 1.549–555.Google Scholar