Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T05:01:05.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can the ‘Elsewhere Condition’ get anywhere?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Irwin Howard
Irwin Howard*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kiparsky 1973 presents evidence that the treatment of disjunctive ordering in The sound pattern of English is inadequate, and proposes an alternative set of general principles collectively referred to as the Elsewhere Condition. The purpose of the present article is to evaluate the adequacy of the Elsewhere Condition on the basis of (1) a review of the evidence given in its favor, and (2) an examination of some of its implications. It is concluded that there is little evidence to warrant the incorporation of the Elsewhere Condition into linguistic theory, and good reason to doubt its validity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 109 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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, L. B. 1968. The left-to-right syllabic cycle. (PEGS paper 32.) Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1969. West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. MIT dissertation. (Duplicated by Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. 1967. Leonard Bloomfield and the phonology of the Menomini language. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1939. Menomini morphophonemics. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8.105–115.Google Scholar
Bright, W. 1957. The Karok language. (University of California publications in linguistics, 13.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1971. Remarks on Slavic accentology. Linguistic Inquiry 2.1–20.Google Scholar
Howard, I. 1972. A directional theory of rule application in phonology. MIT dissertation. (University of Hawaii working papers in linguistics, 4:7. Also duplicated by Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar
Howard, I. 1973. Pitch assignment in Japanese. University of Hawaii working papers in linguistics, 5:1.45–58.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. 1966. Kieli ja sen tutkimus. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Itkonen, T. 1964. Proto-Finnic final consonants. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. 1974. A constraint on variables in phonology. Lg. 50.675–686.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. D. 1970. Formal aspects of phonological descriptions. (POLA reports, 2nd ser., 11.) Berkeley: University of California Phonology Laboratory. [Published by Mouton, 1972.]Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1972. Metrics and morphophonemics in the Rigveda. New ideas in generative phonology, ed. by Brame, M. K., 171–200. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Norman, L. 1973. Bi-directional rules and non-extrinsic ordering. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. D. 1965. A grammar of Diola-Fogny. (West African monographs, 3.) Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. 1968. French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar