Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:51:42.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Phonology: lexical and postlexical derivations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Jerzy Rubach
Jerzy Rubach
Affiliation:
University of Warsaw/Free University, Amsterdam
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Paul Kiparsky's paper (1982) ‘From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology’ is the most interesting recent development in the line of research originated by Kiparsky (1973) and Mascaró (1976). The major task in this research is the investigation of the ways in which rules apply to phonological structures. Kiparsky (1973) makes the very pointed observation that some phonological rules apply exclusively in derived environments. An environment is derived if either (i) or (ii) is true:

(i) the structure which is relevant to the application of the rule arises at morpheme boundaries: the environment is thus derived morphologically;

(ii) the structure which is relevant to the application of the rule arises in the course of phonological derivation due to the application of an earlier phonological rule: the environment is thus derived phonologically.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1985, pp. 157 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Booij, G. E. (1984). Extrasyllabic consonants in prosodic phonology. Paper presented at the 5th Phonologietagung, Eisenstadt.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. & Rubach, J. (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook I. 1–27.Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. & Rubach, J. (1985). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. Vrije Universiteit Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–60.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. (1980). Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1984). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura, O. (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From Cyclic to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Klemensiewiczówna, I. (1950). Czy wolno nam mówić we wodzie, ze sokiem?. Język polski 30. 193–203.Google Scholar
Laskowski, R. (1975). Studia nad morfonologią wspólczesnego języka polskiego. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1977). Consonant changes in English and Polish. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1981). Cyclic Phonology and palatalizationin Polish and English. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984a). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984b). Soft stems and the problem of abstractness. Folia Linguistica 18, 27–63.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (forthcoming). A grid theory of stress in Polish. Lingua.Google Scholar
Steele, R. (1973). The segmental phonology of Contemporary Standard Polish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1982). Silben, Segmente, Akzente. In Vennemann, T. (ed.) Referate zur Wort-, Satz- und Versphonologie anläßfich der vierten Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 261–305.Google Scholar