Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:04:47.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mirror Image Rules II: Lexicon and Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Ronald W. Langacker
Ronald W. Langacker*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Part I (§§1-2) of this paper, previously published, it was argued that a ‘mirror image’ convention must be incorporated into linguistic metatheory in order to account for various syntactic phenomena in the most insightful way. This convention may be interpreted as a notational device serving to collapse rules that are, in a special sense, mirror images of one another. Here, in Part II, it is shown that there is also lexical and phonological motivation for such a convention.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1969 , pp. 844 - 862
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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

Bach, Emmon. 1968. Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Glossa 2.128–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1965. Yankee kinship terminology: a problem in componential analysis. Formal semantic analysis, ed. by Hammel, E. A., 259–87. (American Anthropologist, 67:5, part 2.) Menasha, Wis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1969. Some theoretical implications of the lexical expression of emphatic conjunction. Duplicated.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane Hassler. 1966. A grammar of the Cupeño language. Los Angeles, UCLA doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L., and Grace, G. W.. 1960. The Sparkman grammar of Luiseño. (University of California publications in linguistics, 16.) Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964. A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies. Explorations in cultural anthropology, ed. by Goodenough, Ward H., 351–93. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1967. Meaning and the description of languages. Kotoba no uchu, Vol. 2, nos. 9 (10-18), 10 (38-48), 11 (51-57).Google Scholar
Romney, A. Kimball, and D’Andrade, R. G.. 1964. Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. Transcultural studies in cognition, ed. by D’Andrade, Romney and, 146–70. (American Anthropologist, 66:3, part 2). Menasha, Wis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul, and Fromkin, Victoria. 1968. A phonology of Akan: Akuapem, Asante and Fante. (Working papers in phonetics, 9.) Los Angeles: UCLA Phonetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Wallace, Anthony F. C., and Atkins, John. 1960. The meaning of kinship terms. American Anthropologist 62.58–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar