Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:17:44.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On phonotactically motivated rules*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Alan H. Sommerstein
Alan H. Sommerstein
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The main thesis of this paper is that the grammars of natural languages contain an exhaustive set of conditions on the output of the phonological rules – in fact, a surface phonotactics. I shall show that, contrary to what is usually assumed in generative phonology, a surface phonotactics is not redundant in a generative grammar if the grammar is indeed intended as ‘a theory of linguistic competence’ (Chomsky, 1965: 3), and that if any set of rules in the phonological section of the grammar is redundant it is the morphophonotactic rules, better known as morpheme structure conditions. I shall propose a format for the statement of rules (including so-called ‘conspiracies’) which are ‘motivated’ by the phonotactics in the sense of Matthews (1972: 219–220). Finally, I shall present a set of phonotactic rules for consonant clusters in Latin, and show how the statement of certain rules of Latin phonology can be simplified by taking their phonotactic motivation into account.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1974, pp. 71 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Allen, W. S. (1965). Vox Latina. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, S. R. (1971). On the description of ‘apicalized’ consonants. Lin 2. 103–107.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.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
Kiparsky, P. (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science. University of Maryland: Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. Lin I. 291–306.Google Scholar
Krivnova, O. F. & Kodzasov, S. V. (1972). Review of Postal (1968). Linguistics 94. 111–127.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1971). The phoneme revisited. Lg 47. 503–521.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1973). The sound pattern of ancient Greek. Publications of the Philological Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–436.Google Scholar