Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:36:53.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word Boundaries and Sandhi Rules in Natural Generative Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Mary L. Clayton
Mary L. Clayton*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the claims in Natural Generative Phonology (NGP) that phonetically conditioned rules do not make reference to word boundaries, and that sandhi rules constitute a type of rule ‘intermediate between P-rules and MP-rules’. It is concluded that sandhi rules without (other) morphosyntactic information are like P-rules except for the presence of a word boundary, supposedly a non-phonological boundary. If this is the only reason for separating these sandhi rules from P-rules, then the difference is merely one of definition; and the claim that P-rules may not be conditioned by word boundaries is vacuous, since it is true by definition. The reason that proponents of NGP insist upon the exclusion of word boundaries from P-rules is their adherence to a requirement that no non-phonological information play a part in phonological generalizations. If it can be demonstrated that word boundaries do indeed play a part in P-rules—and if, further, the definition of ‘P-rule’ can be established without circularity (i.e. without including or excluding word boundaries by definition)—then one of the major distinguishing tenets of NGP is shown to be without basis, since it is clear that word boundaries are indeed not purely phonological.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1981, pp. 571 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the 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

Badia Margarit, Antonio M. 1962. Gramática catalana, 1. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard, and Trager, George L. 1942. Outline of linguistic analysis. Baltimore: LSA.Google Scholar
Brasington, R. W. P. 1976. On the functional diversity of phonological rules. JL 12. 125–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, Carl Darling. 1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canfield, Delos Lincoln. 1962. La pronunciatión del español en América. (Publicaciones del Institute Caro y Cuervo, 17.) Bogotá.Google Scholar
Chavarría-Aguilar, Óscar Luis. 1951. The phonemes of Costa Rican Spanish. Lg. 57.248–53.Google Scholar
Clayton, Mary L. 1979. Some variable rules in Caribbean Spanish and their implications for the model of phonetic variation in Natural Generative Phonology. Paper presented at NWAVE 8, Montréal.Google Scholar
Clayton, Mary L. 1980. Sound change and grammar change in Natural Generative Phonology. Paper read at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
Hammond, Robert. 1979. The velar nasal in rapid Cuban Spanish. Colloquium on Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian linguistics, ed. by Lantolf, J. et al., 19–36. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1942. The phonemes of Moroccan Arabic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 62. 309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A manual of phonology. (IJAL, Memoir 11.) Baltimore.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1972. The syllable in phonological theory. Lg. 48.525–40.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Ruth L. 1956. [ŋ] as an allophone denoting open juncture in several Spanish-American dialects. Hispania 39. 293–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen. 1979. Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance mor-phophonology. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, Fritz. 1923. El dialecto de San Ciprián de Sanabria: Monografía leonesa. (Revista de Filología Española, Anejo 4.) Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Google Scholar
Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael. 1977. Hacia una caracterización adecuada de la /n/ final en el español de Santo Domingo. To appear, Proceedings of the Segundo Simposio de Dialectología del Caribe Hispánico, Santo Domingo.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph. 1978. Estudio estructural del habla de Tudanca. (Supplement to Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 167.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1947a. Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1947b. Grammatical prerequisites to phonemic analysis. Word 3. 155–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1952. More on grammatical prerequisites. Word 8. 106–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Kimball. 1979. On the voicing of intervocalic s in the Ecuadorian highlands. RPh.. 33.137–43.Google Scholar
Roca Pons, Josep. 1971. Introducció a l'estudi de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: Vergara.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten, I: Lautlehre. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Salazar, Francisco Javier. 1889. La pronunciación del castellano en el Ecuador. Revista Ecuatoriana 1. 209–16.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1973. Boundaries in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul, 185–206. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1934. The phonemic principle. Lg. 10.117–29.Google Scholar
Toscano Mateus, Humberto. 1953. El español en el Ecuador. (Revista de Filología Española, Anejo 61.) Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientfficas.Google Scholar
Toscano Mateus, Humberto. 1964. El español hablado en el Ecuador. Presente y futuro de la lengua española, I (Primer Congreso de Instituciones Hispánicas, 1963, Madrid), 111–25. Madrid: Oficina Internacional de Información y Observatión del Español.Google Scholar
Trager, George L., and Bloch, Bernard. 1941. The syllabic phonemes of English. Lg. 17.223–46.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1969. Principles of phonology. Tr. by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972a. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972b. Phonological uniqueness in Natural Generative Phonology. Glossa 6. 105–16.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972c. Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–42.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Words and syllables in Natural Generative Phonology. Natural Phonology Parasession, 346–74. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Walsh, Thomas J. 1977. On the necessity of rule ordering in Natural Generative Phonology. Paper presented at the 7th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1943. Phonemic analysis of the English of eastern Massachusetts. SIL 2. 21–40.Google Scholar