Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:26:34.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Establishing Linguistic Universals: A Case for In-Depth Synchronic Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

James E. Cathey and
Richard A. Demers
James E. Cathey
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
Richard A. Demers
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although important insights have been gained by comparing small amounts of data from disparate sources, linguistic generalizations are unlikely to prove valid when based on data whose synchronic status is not well-defined. As a case in point, the recent proposal by Koutsoudas, Sanders & Noll 1974 for universal principles of grammatical rule ordering is here shown to be insufficient, from their own data and on the basis of phonological rules derived from a thorough synchronic analysis of Old Icelandic. It is maintained that a proposal can have positive empirical consequences only if it imposes no conditions to eliminate extrinsic ordering from a grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1976, pp. 611 - 630
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

Anderson, Stephen. 1969. West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110930894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathey, James E., and Demers, Richard A. 1975. The single weak verb class of Old Icelandic. The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 2. 407–18. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Cathey, James E., and Demers, Richard A. MS. On determining rules in a generative grammar.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Drescher, Elan. 1974. Two cases of diachronic rule analysis in the Mercian dialect of Old English. MS.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. Jay. 1974. Theoretical consequences of Old English phonology. MS.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. Jay. 1975. Metathesis and Old English phonology. LI 6. 377–412.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. How abstract is phonology? Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Printed in Three dimensions of phonological theory, ed. by Fujimura, O., 5–56. Tokyo: TEC, 1973.].Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, W. O., 576–649. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald; and Noll, Craig. 1974. The application of phonological rules. Lg. 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg. 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Stickelberger, Heinrich. 1881. Lautlehre der lebenden Mundart der Stadt Schaffhausen. Aarau: H. Sauerländer.Google Scholar