Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T13:13:26.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What else happens to opaque rules?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Sarah G. Thomason
Sarah G. Thomason*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In discussing rule opacity as a factor influencing phonological change, Kiparsky 1971 mentions three common fates of opaque rules within the phonological system: loss; re-ordering with respect to other rules to yield greater transparency; and morphologization. In this paper I discuss another sort of systematic reaction to the presence of an opaque rule, a reaction that has so far been overlooked in the discussion of rule opacity: the elimination of opacity-inducing environments in inflectional paradigms through analogic affix replacements. I argue that effects of this sort will continue to be overlooked until we recognize, and deal explicitly with, non-phonological aspects of inflectional change.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 370 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 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

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1967. Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. To honor Roman Jakobson 1. 239–70. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1958. Die serbokroatischen Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ivković, Miloš. 1927. A collection of folk tales from Resava. In Srpske narodne pripovetke, ed. by V. Čajkanović (Srpski etnografski zbornik 41). Belgrad.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. TCLP 6. 240–88.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. The gender pattern of Russian. Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice 11. 541–3.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, William Orr, 576–649. College Park: Linguistics Program, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Explanation in phonology. Goals in linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, S., 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kušar, M. 1894. Rapski dijalekat. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, razredi historičko-filologički i filozofičko-juridički, 118/40.1-54.Google Scholar
Leskien, August. 1876. Die Declination im Slavisch-litauischen und Germanischen. (Preisschriften gekrönt und herausgegeben von der Fürstlich Jablonowski'schen Gesellschaft, 19.) Leipzig.Google Scholar
Stevanović, Mihailo. 1964. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik. Belgrade: Naučno Delo.Google Scholar
Strohal, Rudolf. 1903. Osobine današnjega lokvarskoga narječja. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, razredi historičko-filologički i filozofičko-juridički, 152/59.162-248.Google Scholar
Svane, Gunnar Olaf. 1958. Die Flexionen in štokavischen Texten aus dem Zeitraum 1350-1400. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. MS a. On the analysis of inflectional change. To appear in Papers in Linguistics 7.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. MS b. A fragment of Serbo-Croatian declensional history. To appear in Studies in Slavic morphology, ed. by Naylor, K. E. & Koubourlis, Demetrius.Google Scholar