Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:07:34.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competing changes as a cause of residue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

William S-Y. Wang
William S-Y. Wang*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonological change may be implemented in a manner that is phonetically abrupt but lexically gradual. As the change diffuses across the lexicon, it may not reach all the morphemes to which it is applicable. If there is another change competing for part of the lexicon, residue may result. Several fundamental issues in the theory of phonological change are raised and discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 9 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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

Bennett, William H. 1966. The Germanic evidence for Bartholomae's law. Lg. 42.733–737.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard. 1953. Contrast. Lg. 29.59–61.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bonfante, Giuliano. 1947. The neolinguistic position. Lg. 23.344–375.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1967. The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34.115–136.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Lg. 42.508–517.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Osgood, Charles E., and Saporta, Sol. 1954. Language change. Psycholinguistics, ed. by Osgood, C. E. and Sebeok, T. A., pp. 146–163. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. A descriptive convention for treating assimilation and dissimilation. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, Quarterly Progress Report, 66.295–296.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert T. 1967. Split, shift and merger in the Permic vowels. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 39.163–198.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1965. Sound change. Lg. 41.185–204.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in action. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas. 1967. A note on the precedence relations in phonology. Project on Linguistic Analysis, report 2.2. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kenyon, John S., and Knott, T. A.. 1944. A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.Google Scholar
King, Robert. 1967. Functional load and sound change. Lg. 43.831–853.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. and Harms, R., pp. 171–202. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P., and Malkiel, Y. (eds.) 1968. Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1968. The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. In Lehmann & Malkiel 1968:21–64.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1967. Types of phonemic change. To honor Roman Jakobson, pp. 1393–407. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Peking University. 1962. Hànyū fāngyīn zìhuì. (Phonetic dictionary of Chinese dialects.) Peking.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Sommerfelt, Alf. 1923. Note sur les changements phonétiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 24.138–141.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edward H. 1917. Linguistic change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1888. History of English sounds. Oxford.Google Scholar
Tung, Tung-he. 1960. Four South Min dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 30.729–1042. Taipei.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1954. Contact of languages. Word 10.365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1967a. The measurement of functional load. Phonetica 16.36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1967b. Phonological features of tone. IJAL 33:93–105.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44.695–708.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, 1958. A retrograde sound shift in the guise of a survival. Estructuralismo e historia, miscelánea homenaje a André Martinet, 2.221–267. La Laguna.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Herzog, Marvin; and Labov, William. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change: stimuli and constraints from structure and society. In Lehmann & Malkiel 1968:95–195.Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S. 1949. Automatic alternation. Lg. 29.99–116.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Benjamin I. 1887. Analogy and the scope of its application in language. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. 1887. The principle of economy as a phonetic force. Transactions of the American Philological Association 10.123–134.Google Scholar
Zeps, Valdis J. 1966. A synchronic and diachronic order of rules: mutations of velars in Old Church Slavonic. Approaches to linguistic methodology, ed. by Rauch, Irmengard and Scott, C. T., pp. 145–151. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar