Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-smskv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-02T20:35:34.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Upside-down’ phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

William R. Leben  and
Orrin W. Robinson
William R. Leben
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Orrin W. Robinson
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We here propose and defend a system in which lexical representations of words are expressed in their surface-phonetic isolation forms, and in which phonological rules permit lexical pronunciations to be ‘undone’ in various ways that relate segments to other segments. To the extent that the phonological component is descriptively adequate, it permits morphological rules (which apply after each ‘undoing’ of a phonological rule) to parse lexical representations correctly; this accounts for speakers' knowledge that, e.g., baron and baronial are related, though they have not been given this information explicitly. We argue that this represents a significant advance over other phonological theories: it automatically captures certain alternations that require exception features or exceptional rules in other accounts, it provides a principled basis for constraining phonology in ways that are commonly thought desirable, and it explains why so much linguistic innovation takes place at the ‘bottom’ of the grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1974a. On the typology of phonological rules. Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 1–12. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1974b. The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1975. On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. Journal of Linguistics 11. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark H. 1974. Word-structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y., and Wang, William S-Y. 1975. Sound change: actuation and implementation. Lg. 51. 255–81.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J., 50–118. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enderlin, Fritz. 1911. Die Mundart von Kesswil im Oberthurgau. (Beiträge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik, 5). Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., and Jenkins, James J. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English, I—II. Word 20. 157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1973. Aspects of natural generative phonology. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1975. The archisegment in natural generative phonology. Lg. 51. 536–60.Google Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf. 1934. Die Mundart von Mutten. (Beiträge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik, 19). Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Lg. 51. 639–71.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1973. Rule insertion. Lg. 49. 551–78.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. & Harms, R., 170–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, W. O., 576–649. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, O., 5–56. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1974. Derivational processes and word perception, ms.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J., and Ohala, Manjari. 1975. Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. Paper presented at the Winter LSA Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William. 1974. Grammatica sana in mente sanā (naturaliter). Paper presented at the Winter LSA Meeting, New York.Google Scholar
Robinson, Orrin W. 1976. A ‘scattered’ rule in Swiss German. Lg. 52. 148–62.Google Scholar
Robinson, Orrin W. ms. Rule re-ordering and lexical diffusion. To appear in The lexicon in phonological change, ed. by Wang, W. S-Y. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1974. Variability of consonants in English and Polish. University of Warsaw dissertation.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1971. The phoneme revisited. Lg. 47. 503–21.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Lg. 49. 87–106.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. A dissertation on natural phonology. University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–42.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 346–74. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Lg. 45. 9–25.Google Scholar
Wanner, Georg. 1941. Die Mundarten des Kantons Schaffhausen. (Beiträge zur schweizerdeutschen Grammatik, 20). Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1975. Morphology and the rule-ordering controversy. Papers from the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 460–74.Google Scholar