Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-k72x6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T12:01:42.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some consequences of Lexical Phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Paul Kiparsky
Paul Kiparsky
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Phonological theory in recent years can be said to have undergone a ‘modularisation’ in several respects. The formal theory is no longer expected to explain everything about phonology by itself: generalisations about phonological change which previously were used to motivate constraints on abstractness or opacity have turned out to make more sense as effects of real-time language acquisition and use. Secondly, phonological representations have become multi-tiered arrays, and much that seemed problematic about the application of rules has resolved itself in terms of properties of these arrays. Lastly, phonology itself is seen as applying both within the lexicon to the output of each morphological process, and to the output of the syntsactic component. The lexicon, moreover, may itself be organised into a hierarchy of levels, each constituting a quasi-autonomous morphological and phonological domain. In this paper I propose to investigate some consequences of this third kind of modularisation, the approach which has come to be known as LEXICAL PHONOLOGY.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 85 - 138
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

Alekseev, D. I. (1963). Proiznošenie složnosokraščennyx slov i bukvennyx abbreviatur. Voprosy Kul'tury Reči 4. 22–37.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Paul, Kiparsky (eds.) (1973). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark(1976). Wordformation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Richard, T. Oehrle (eds.) (1984). Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. (1972). Russkoe literaturnoe proiznošenie. Moscow: Učpedgiz.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. I. & Ožegov, S. I. (1959). Russkoe literaturnoe proiznošenie i udarenie: slovar'-spravočnik. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSR, Institut russkogo jazyka.Google Scholar
Barratt, L. (1981). Prenasalized stops in Guaraní - where the autosegment fails. Linguistic Analysis 7. 187–202.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson & Kiparsky (1973). 232–286.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1981). Akan vowel harmony: a nonlinear analysis. Harvard Studies in Phonology 2. 108–177.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Ford, K. C. (1979). Kikuyu tone shift and its synchronic consequences. LI 10. 179–210.Google Scholar
Coats, Herbert & A., Harshenin (1971). On the phonological properties of Russian v. Slavic and East European Journal 15. 466–478.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976a). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976b). An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2. 23–68.Google Scholar
Gregores, E. & J., Su´rez (1967). A description of colloquial Guaraní. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1973) The accentuation of Russian words. Lg 49. 312–348.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & J.-R., Vergnaud (1980). Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research I. 83–105.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & J.-R., Vergnaud (1981). Harmony processes. In Klein, W. & Levelt, W. (eds.) Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 1–22.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & J.-R., Vergnaud (1982). On the framework of autosegmental phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 65–82.Google Scholar
Harms, Robert (1973). Some non-rules in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Harris, James (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Harris James (ms). Spanish spirantization as an autosegmental assimilation rule. MIT.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1984). The phonetics and phonology of Russian voicing assimilation. In Aronoff& Oehrle (1984). 318–328.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin (1972). A directional theory of rule application in phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander (1955). Review of W. Steinitz, Russische Lautlehre. Zeitschrzft für Phonetik 8. 411–416.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und aligemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets Förhandlingar. Also in Selected Writings I2The Hague: Mouton. 328–401.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1948). Russian conjugation. Word 4. 155–167.Google Scholar
Also in Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton. 119–129.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1956). Die Verteilung der stimmhaften und stimmlosen Geräuschlaute im Russischen. In Margarete, Woltner & Herbert, Bräuer (eds.) Festschrift für Max Vasmer. Berlin: Freie Universität. 199–202. Also inGoogle Scholar
Selected Writings I2The Hague: Mouton. 505–509.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1968). K voprosu o gluxosti i zvonkosti russkix, ščelinnyx gubnyx. Slavia Orientalis 17. 321–324.Google Scholar
Also in Selected Writings I2. The Hague: Mouton. 728–733.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1978). Mutual assimilation of Russian voiced and voiceless consonants. Studia Linguistica 32. 107–110.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. & Margaret, Stong-Jensen (1976). Ordering and the directionality of iterative rules. In Koutsoudas, A. (ed.) The application and ordering of grammatical rules. The Hague: Mouton. 104–121.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D. (1982). Harmony processes in Vata. Projet sur les langues Kru (premier rapport). Montreal: UQAM. 60–151.Google Scholar
Kean, Mary-Louise (1974). The strict cycle in phonology. LI 5. 179–203.Google Scholar
Kean, Mary-Louise (1975). The theory of markedness in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles, Kisseberth (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. & Paul, Kiparsky (1984). Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 7–31.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, l.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C. C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E. (eds.) Nordic prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–164.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Janet, Pierrehumbert (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 157–233.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. I: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Lunt, H. (1973). Remarks on nasality: the case of Guarani. In Anderson & Kiparsky (1973). 131–139.Google Scholar
Mascarö, J. (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Notes on Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, Ms, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1983). Notes on Lexical Phonology and English. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Poser, William (1981). Nasalization in Guaraní and the autosegmental theory of phonology. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1983). Tone in Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rivas, Alberto (1974a). Apïnguarehegu´ nasalization in Guaraní. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Rivas, Alberto (1974 b). Nasalization in Guarani. NELS 5. 134–143.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1981). Cyclic Phonology and palatalization in Polish and English. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. D. (1965). A grammar of Diola-Fogny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Victoria, Fromkin (1968). A phonology of Akan: Akuapem, Asante, and Fante. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 9.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael (1966). On non-distinctive voicing in Russian. JL 2. 189–194.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1977). Un fragment de phonologie de Guarani. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1981). Parameters of metrical harmony rules. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. & Edwin, L.Battistella, (1982). Rule application in phonology. New York: Queens College, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar