Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T20:48:11.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Need for a Phonological Base

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Geoffrey Sampson
Geoffrey Sampson*
Affiliation:
The Queen's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pre-Chomskyan linguistics recognized that the phonological systems of natural languages tend to form symmetrical patterns; this insight could be incorporated into generative phonology via a phonological base component, but is not adequately expressed by MS rules. A phonological base would also solve some difficulties in the theory of systematic phonetics. Current lack of interest in phonological patterning has resulted from the increased attention paid to morphophonemics; but the deep vs. surface distinction in phonology can be demonstrated on the basis of patterning even in languages lacking morpho-phonemic alternation. That distinction, it is argued, may be of only historical validity, whether or not alternations occur in the language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 586 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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, John. 1969. Syllabic or non-syllabic phonology? JL 5. 136–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1964. An introduction to transformational grammars. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Harms, R. T. (eds.) 1968. Universais in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Ballard, W. L. 1968. A working hypothesis of phonological complexity. Paper read to LSA Annual Meeting, New York City.Google Scholar
Binnick, R. I., et al. (eds.) 1969. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 18-9, 1969. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard, and Trager, G. L. 1942. Outline of linguistic analysis. Baltimore: LSA.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1968. The ordering of phonological rules. IJAL 34. 115–36.Google Scholar
Cheng, R. L. 1966. Mandarin phonological structure. JL 2. 135–58.10.1017/S0022226700001444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 38.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Lectures on English phonology. [Delivered at Linguistic Institute, UCLA.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1967. Some general properties of phonological rules. Lg. 43. 102–28.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Halle, Morris; and Lukoff, Fred. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. For Jakobson, Roman, ed. by Halle, Morris et al., 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1969. Simplicity, descriptive adequacy, and binary features. Lg. 45.18.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles, and Saporta, Sol. 1960. The validation of a phonological grammar. Lingua 9. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, J. A. 1964. The Initial Teaching Alphabet reading experiment. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A., and Chowdhury, Munier. 1960. The phonemes of Bengali. Lg. 36.2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A., and Katz, J. J. (eds.) 1964. The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall .Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. 1967. The nature of phonological primes. JL 3. 1–36.10.1017/S0022226700012937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. C. 1969. Syllables. JL 5. 253–86.10.1017/S0022226700002267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, A. 1937. A list of spelling difficulties in 3876 words. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72. (Reprinted in Fodor & Katz, 334-52.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1964. On the bases of phonology. In Fodor & Katz, 324r-33.Google Scholar
Han, Mieko S. 1966. Studies in the phonology of Asian languages, IV: Vietnamese vowels. Los Angeles: Acoustic Phonetics Research Laboratory, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. R., et al. 1966. Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Office of Education.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. 1968. Introduction to phonological theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall .Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1965. The articulation of final ‘-nh’ and ‘-ch’ in Vietnamese. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Zwirner, Eberhard and Bethge, Wolfgang, 348–52. Basel: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Hill, T. 1966. The technique of prosodic analysis. In memory of J. R. Firth, ed. by Bazell, C. E. et al., 198–226. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Lg. 18. 3–21.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1947. Peiping phonology. JAOS 67. 253–67. (Reprinted in Readings in linguistics, ed. by Joos, Martin, 217-28. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1963.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1965. Sound change. Lg. 41. 185–204.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1967. Language, mathematics, and linguistics. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 60.) The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111353500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, F. W. 1959. On linguistic primes. Word 15. 231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, G.; and Halle, M. 1951. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Fodor, J. A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39. 170–210.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968a. Linguistic universais and linguistic change. In Bach & Harms, 170–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968b. How abstract is phonology? Publication of the Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Mimeographed.)Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1966. Is the syllable a phonological universal? JL 2. 207–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozevnikov, V. A., and Čistovič, L. A. (eds.) 1965. Reč’: artikuljacija i vosprijatije. Moscow: Nauka. (Translated as Speech: articulation and perception. Washington: Joint Publications Research Service translation 30, 543, 1965.)Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, Paul. 1964. Disyllabic stress patterns in Peking dialect. Archiv Orientální 32. 383–402.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1967. Three areas of experimental phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1969. On derivational constraints. In Binnick et al., 117–39.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. 1966. Prolegomena to a theory of phonology. Lg. 42. 536–73.Google Scholar
Lee, Gregory. 1969. English word-stress. In Binnick et al., 389–406.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. 1966-7. Lectures on acoustic phonetics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P.; & Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74. 431–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCawley, J. D. 1967. Le rôle d’un système de traits phonologiques dans une théorie du langage. Langages 8. 112–23.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968a. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. (Monographs on linguistic analysis, 2.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968b. The rôle of semantics in a grammar. In Bach & Harms, 125–69.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1969a. Length and voicing in Tūbatulabal. In Binnick et al., 409–15.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1969b. The underlying vowel system of English. Paper read at University of Reading, 1 December.Google Scholar
Mattingly, I. G., and Liberman, A. M., ms. The speech code and the physiology of language. To appear in Information processing and the nervous system, ed. by Leibovic, K. N. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Melzack, Julian, ms. Is semantics possible?Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rauch, Irmengard, and Scott, C. T. (eds.) 1967. Approaches in linguistic methodology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Romeo, Luigi. 1964. Toward a phonological grammar of Modern Spoken Greek. Papers in memory of G. C. Pappageotes (suppl. to Word 20:3), ed. by Austerlitz, R. et al., 60–78.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. 1969. Hanoi dorsal finals. BSOAS 32. 115–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. R. ms a. Stratificational grammar: a definition and an example. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 88.) The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110811834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. R. ms b. Towards a linguistic theory of reference.Google Scholar
Saporta, Sol, and Contreras, Heles. 1962. A phonological grammar of Spanish. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. 1968. French phonology and morphology. (Research monograph 45.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. 1969. Review of Schane 1968. Lg. 45. 398–407.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg. 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1934. The phonemic principle. Lg. 10. 117–29.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. C. 1965. A Vietnamese grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. C. 1967. The history of Vietnamese final palatals. Lg. 43. 362–71.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzūge der Phonologie. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7.) Prague.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1967. Phonological features of tone. UAL 33. 93–105.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44. 695–708.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. D. 1966. A criticism of distinctive features. JL 2. 195–206.10.1017/S0022226700001481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, Nancy. 1970. Tone in Northern Tepehuan. IJAL 36. 18–30.Google Scholar
Zeps, V. J. 1967. A synchronic and diachronic order of rules: mutations of velars in Old Church Slavonic. In Rauch & Scott, 145–51.Google Scholar