530

Some Implications of Natural Phonology

Richard A. RhodesUniversity of Michigan

The purpose of this paper is to try to relate the theory ofnatural phonology that Stampe has been developing over the pastseveral years (Stampe (1969), (1971),(1972a),(1972h)) to the thingsthat have been and are being done in the rest of the field of gener-ative phonology. The work that Stampe is doing relates directly tosuch issues as abstractness and rule ordering, among others. Forthis reason I feel that generative phonologists should take a seriouslook at Stampe's work. This paper is offered as a first step in thatdirection..1

This paper is divided into three main sections and an appendix.In the first section I will briefly outline a model of natural phono-logy based on my interpretation of Stampe's work and present evidencethat putative objections to such a model are not viable. In thesecond section I will sketch some arguments about the details of themodel of natural phonology I have proposed. Unfortunately, due tothe limitations of space only sketches can be given. In the thirdsection I will point out some implications of natural phonology forthe rest of generative phonology. Finally an appendix is offered tocover some peripheral issues raised by the argument in the first sec-tion relating to historical linguistics.

1.1 In his work, Stampe distinguishes between two kinds of rulesin language (Stampe (1971)). The first kind are the natural processes(henceforth NPs) which comprise the innate rules physiologically andmentalistically motivated, e.g. the devoicing of obstruents in voice-less environments, contextual nasalization, palatalization in thevicinity of high or front vowels or glides, the spontaneous denasaliz-ation of vowels, etc. The second kind are the "rules" which accountfor various kinds of abstract phonological alternations, often occur-ring only in abstract or morphological environments, e.g. velar soften-ing in English (k s in certain words before certain suffixes),stress placement in Spanish (which is predictable if accounted for atan abstract level), etc. To date Stampe has not developed the roleof "rules" in natural phonology, but has concentrated on the NPs.However, in any attempt to relate his work to the main stream ofgenerative phonological thought, we must incorporate "rules" into ourinterpretation of his view of phonology, since much of the work beingdone in generative phonology involves both "rules" and NPs.

Now it is implicit in Stampe's work that no"rule" is orderedamong the NPs (Stampe (1971)), so we are led to a view of phonologyin which derivations look like that in (1) (the particular derivationgiven is not intended to make any specific claims about English, butonly to give a general idea of what derivations look like, and wherethe important forms lie in a derivation).2

(1)

Rules

NPs

f -01-StressingVelar Softening

1 AspirationVowel ReductionTap Formation/-Insertion_

531

ilektrik-iti Systematic Phonemic Form

taktrikitiiliktristtl Natural Phonemic Form

IIktçCsitieqlcqesitielhtcCsLri?eaktristri Surface Form

Let me clarify the terminology I amusing in (1): Systematic Phonemic

Form means what generative phonologists normally take as underlying

forms. Henceforth I will label this level UF. Natural Phonemic Form

means what Stampe refers to as underlying form; it includes some

morphophonemes as well as classical phonemes. IT IS g2I.THE SAME - AS

THE CLASSICAL PHONEMIC LEVEL.3 Surface Form means what generative phono-

logists normally take as the output of a derivation, i.e. some re-

presentation of a careful, but not exaggerated, pronunciation of the

form.'

1.2 Now I would like to argue that a view like that in §1.1, con-

taining a linguistically significant intermediate level (corresponding

to the level Stampe calls underlying) is motivated on grounds well-

known and widely accepted by gen6rative phonologists in general.

Consider the following condition on grammars proposed and argued

for by Kiparsky (1968a).

(2) The Alternation Condition—Any segment which does not alter-

nate must be represented the same in UF as at some inter*

mediate leve1.5

Assuming with the majority of generative phonologists that the Alter-

nation Condition (henceforth AC) is a valid principle of language, let

us address the issue of how to characterize the intermediate level on

which the AC is defined. We shall entertain as our initial hypothesis

that the level in question is that suggested by Kiparsky when he first,

proposed the AC, viz., a level corresponding to the autonomous phonemic

level (see Kiparsky (1968a)). We will call this the transparency hypo-

thesis because it characterizes the level in question in terms of the

unique recoverability of forms at that level from the corresponding

forms at the surface level (biuniqueness in earlier parlance). An

initial formulation of this hypothesis is given in (3).

(3) The Transparency Hypothesis-- In a language L, if there is

some rule R which is never responsible for the neutraliz-

ation of two forms in L, and in every derivation, the only

rules which ever apply after R are likewise never respons-

ible for the neutralization of two forms in L, then the

input to R (or the potential input to R if R does not apply)

is the relevant level for determining which rules are sub-

ject to the AC.

Now let me outline the line of argument that I will follow in deter-

mining the validity of the Transparency Hypothesis.

1. In a certain language there are segments which appear on the

532

surface but are not necessary in UFs from the analyst's pointof view, and which native speakers do not recognize as beingdistinct from certain other segments which are necessary inUFs. Therefore the correct analysis involves deriving everyinstance of the surface segments in question by rule, i.e.the segments in question do not appear in UFs.

2. If the segments in question do not appear in UFs, then evennon-alternating instances of these segments arise by rule.So the rules which generate these segments must be exemptfrom the AC.

3. There are rules of this type which are responsible for theneutralization of forms (or the potential neutralization offorms).

4. Therefore the Transparency Hypothesis is wrong.The language we are going to examine is Russian, which has a ruleassimilating the voicing of obstruents in clusters (Halle (1959)).Since in this discussion we will only be interested in the voicingeffects of the rule, let me formulate the rule for our purposes as in(4).6

(4) Voicing Assimilation

[+obs] + [+vd] /[ +obs 1

+vd

This rule also operates across word boundries. So consider a sequencelike [14j bl] 'were one to burn'. If Halle's insight into the struc-ture of Russian is correct, viz., neither linguists nor native speak-ers deem it necessary to have [j] in UFs, then all instances of [j)arise by rule, as the one in the sequence above arises from the appli-cation of (4) to the sequence /146 bi/. If this is the case, rule (4)must be exempt from the AC, because some instances of [j] will appearin non-alternating positions by virtue of the application of rule (4).However, consider the forms in (5).

(5) (a) nok 'horn' UP /rog/rags (gen.)n3g bi (emp.)

(b). rok 'fate' UF /rok/rakA (gen.)r6g b4 (emp.)'

In these form it is clear that the operation of (4) is responsiblefor the neutralization of these two forms, as shown in (6).

(6) mi. rotg bl rak hiRule (4) --- r6g biOther rules r6g b4 r6g b4Surface form (r6g b4] (r6g IA.]

Therefore rule (4) is a counterexample to the version of the transpar-ency hypothesis given in (3).

Therefore let 'kis reformulate a weaker version of the transparencyhypothesis to allowsibustionSlike that with rule (4).

.533

(7) The Weak Transparency Hypothesis--Given any morpheme M in a

language L, if there is some rule R which is never re-

sponsible for the neutralization of any form in which M

occurs with any other form or potential form in L, and in

all derivations involving M, the only rules which ever

apply R are likewise never responsible for the neutraliz-

ation of the forms in question with any other forms in L

or potential forms in L, then the input to R is the relev-

ant level for determining which applications of rules are

subject to the AC.

Notice that what this refinement says is that the basic notion expres-

sed in (3) was correct with only refinement that the level is a little

"fuzzy". However, in the case of a form like /at-146 bi/ [a4141 bi]

'were one to anneal', we are forced to the uncomfortable claim that

we must divide the two applications of rule (4), so that the level can

be defined on the output of the first, as shown in derivation (8).

(8) UF at-166 biRule (4) 1st application ad146 bi 4- level of relevance

e application ad141 hi

Other rules 8414j b4Surface form [a4141 bi]

Now while there are a number of potentially serious problems with such

an approach, I will not address them, but move directly to a form which

will show that this approach is impossible anyway. Consider the form

/tavAci46 bi/ [tavArLzj bi] 'comrade (emp.)'. In this case, even if the

intermediate stages of the derivation (9) are available, the applic-

ation of rule (4). which we know to be exempt from the AC must precede

the application of rule (4) which even the weak version of the trans-

parency hypothesis says Is subject to the AC.

(9) UFRule (4) 1st application

end application

Other rules

Surface form

tavAcig6 bitav6044 bi

tavIciij bi

tavactij b4

ftavAcLij b4]

But perhaps we can still salvage a weaker version of the transparency

hypothesis by suggesting that since this situation is very rare, it

may be that the way to look at it is in terms of the overall transpar-

ency of the derivation, and some suitable revision of (7) will still

hold up. Unfortunately, however, it is not the case that all instances

of [in before a voiced obstruent arise from underlying /i6/, because

in at least some dialects there is a rule which looks something like

(10).

(10) 4 4-j/ 1

The operation of (10) is illustrated by the forms in (11).

(11) (a) zobluldAttsa 'to err'zablulj6giya 'error'

534

(11) (b) zaraIdAttsa 'to be conceived'zaraijeqiya 'conception'

Now consider the forms in (12).

(12) (a) do 4C 'rain' underlying /604/daij4 (gen.)doij bi (emp.)

(b) tavAra6 'comrade' underlying /tavArig6/tavArL4Ca (gen.)tavklij b4 (amp.)

Clearly the application of rule (4) and the application of rule (10)are non-transparent in the forms in (12), just where both must beexempt from the AC because they derive [j]. Therefore it appears thatany characterization of which rules or which applications of rules areexempt from the AC in terms of transparency is hopeless.7

Now Stampe has argued extensively that the natural phonemic levelis a reality for reasons unrelated to the issue of abstractness (Stampe(1969), (19721,)). To my knowledge the only objection to accepting alevel like the natural phonemic level as the level on which the AC isdefined was that it is not transparent because it contains some morpho -phonemes, and therefore, it was thought, it could not be the levelsought. However, this objection has been dispensed with by showingthat transparency is not a possible criterion for determining the levelin question. Therefore, because Stampe's level is needed anyway, andthere is no reason to think that the level relating to abstractness isany different from the natural phonemic level, by Ockham's razor,thesetwo levels are the same.8

2. Now let me turn to examining the model of natural phonologysuggested in §1.1. The first thing I want to consider is Stampe'sclaim that there is a clear distinction between "rules" and NPs. Givenour model, the question boils down to whether every substitution pro-cess which one would want to characterize as an NP is available tofunction below the natural phonemic level, or whether there is somelimitation on substitution process such that there are both naturalrules and natural procesaes.9 In this regard let us consider cases ofvowel harmony substitutions. It is quite clear that these substitutionsare of the sort which one would want to characterize as natural sub-stitutions, i.e. children often go through a stage of vowel harmonizingin language acquisition (Jakobson (1968)), totally unrelated languagesall over the world have amazingly similar kinds of vowel harmony sub-stitutions, and there seems to be a direct physiological motivationfor vowel harmony substitutions. Yet even though the physiologicalmotivation is clear, nonetheless, in most instances, languages havingvowel harmony substitutions are either replete with exceptions (likeTurkish), or contain "neutral" vowels which obscure the physiologicalmotivation (like Finnish, and Nez Perce), or are opaquelo and strangelyconstrained (like Yokuts). These kinds of features are very unlike thekind of natural substitution that operates below the natural phonemiclevel. Those things which we characterize as NPs operate almost with-

535

out exception, reflect very directly their physiological motivation(if they are context-sensitive), and only in rare instances are limitedby morphological contexts. Therefore I suspect that vowel harmonysubstitutions are natural rules rather than natural procegmes. Further-more, for languages like Turkish and Yokuts, this means that instancesof epenthetic vowels must also be due to natural rules and not naturalprocesses, since these vowels must be supplied prior to vowel harmony.But since epenthetic vowels can in some instances be supplied by sub-stitutions which are clearly NPs (e.g. in the specification of non-distinctive open transitions in consonant clusters), it must be the

case that it is possible for a natural substitution to function in alanguage either as a natural rule or as a natural process. Thus thedistinction Stampe was trying to make between rule and process is not

quite as clear as one might hope. In fact it is at this failure torecognize that there may be natural rules as well as NPs, that manygenerative phonologists have balked, in considering Stampe's work.Also this means that in studying the phonology of a language, we mustbe careful to distinguish whether an instance of an innate process

active in the language is actually functioning as a natural rule oras an NP.

It appears, too, that there are several limitations on the class

of natural substitutions whiCh can function as NPs in a given language.

For example, not surprisingly there appears to be a strong limitation

on the "amount" of neutralization that may take place below the natural

phonemic level. In particular, it seems that deletions are only poss-

ible below the natural phonemic level if the segment to be deleted

has left some trace behind, as the result of the operation of some

other NP which it conditions, or if it is in some other way recoverable.It's likely that this is not the correct formulation of the limitation,

but it is still clear that some such restriction exists.11Another kind of limitation on natural substitutions functioning

below the natural phonemic level is that in adult speech it is not, in

general, possible to have a number of natural processes relating onesegment at the natural phonemic level to one on the surface. So whileIn child language it is possible to have a surface [z]be derived from

a natural.phonemic /I/ by way of the four natural substitutions

I -1..y+j÷I-0.z (Stampe (1972b)), such apile up of natural substi-

tutions is not possible below the natural phonemic level in adult lan-

guage. This is the equivalent of saying that z can never be an allo-

phone of! in the terminology of an earlier era. 12

At present I have no clear notion of how one determines if a

natural substitution is functioning as a rule or as a process in a given

language except by circuitous argumentation like the kind I suggested

for determining the status of epenthesis in Turkish and Yokuts, although

I have some ideas. For example, it is likely that the status of aparticular substitution is greatly influenced by the opaqueness13 of its

application (in Stampe's terminology, by the extent to which the sub-

stitution is contradicted on the surface). I suspect that this is the

case because many of the rules of a language are the synchronic remnant

of NPs of an earlier stage of the.language whose effects have become

obscured by the introduction of new NPs in the development of the

536

language."

3. In conclusion I would like to comment briefly and informallyon a few implications of a model of natural phonology like the one wehave been considering for people working on current issues in gener-ative phonology.

One of the crucial facts about any theory of natural phonology isthat in such a model those substitutions which function as rules havea different psychological status from those which function as processes.Let me indicate how this fact bears on two particular issues of recentconcern.

First there is the issue of what makes for a linguistically sig-nificant generalization. Recently there have been a number of gener-ative phonologists who have raised questions relating to how one de-termines the linguistic reality of rules one is tempted to write, orto put it another way, what kind of linguistic evidence is needed tosupport a rule. Our model of rjaatural phonology provides at leastpart of the answer. Since the NPs of a language are merely languagespecific implementations of innate processes, the kind of evidencethat needs to be adduced either by the linguist or by the child toposit one of these NPs as a real generalization about a particularlanguage can be of every weak sort. Possibly it need only be patternevidence.15 On the other hand, rules must be heavily attested byalternation evidence, because they have to be "constructed" fromscratch, and are often opaque. Evidence for natural rules can presum-ably be a little weaker.

The second issue which I would like to address is the issue ofrule ordering. In all the argumentation about rule ordering, there hasbeen a tacit assumption that all substitutions are of the same nature.Given a model of natural phonology, substitutions have two differentstatuses, and two facts follow. The trivial fact is that given twosubstitutions, if one is a rule and the other is a process, thenregardless of any other considerations, the process will always applyafter the rule. The not-so-trivial fact is that there is no reasonto assume that the principles governing the order of application ofsubstitutions functioning as rules in a language are the same as theprinciples governing the order of application of substitutions func-tioning as processes." So even if it can be shown that one or theother of these blocks of substitutions needs no extrinsic orderingconstraints, that doesn't mean that the other block doesn't need them.

In summary what natural phonology has to say to the rest of gen-erative phonology is that not only must possible solutions to problemsin phonology be measured against the formal properties of substitutions,but the same kinds of ways that formal properties of substitutionsrelate to what constitute possible solutions, the content and psycho-logical properties of substitutions relate to what constitute possiblesolutions.

537

Appendix

Apparently one of the reasons that generative phonologists have

clung to the transparency hypothesis is the mistaken notion that any

intermediate level which included morphophonemes would not account

correctly for historical restructuring. To remedy that misconception,

I offer this appendix.In particular the problems center around instances of neutraliz-

ation. There are two kinds of neutralization and I will discuss them

separately. The first kind of neutralization is when two segments A

and B are neutralized to B in some environment. The second kind of

neutralization is when two segments A and B are both neutralized to

some new segment C in some environment.

1. The A-becomes-B case. The classical example of the A-becomes-

B kind of neutralization is the case of German obstruent devoicing,

given in (13).

(13) Devoicing

[+obs] [-vd] /f+c

1#

Now Devoicing is an NP par excellence, therefore forms at the natural

phonemic level do not show the effects of Devoicing; thus bunt "color-

ful" is represented /bunt/ (cf. bunte) and Bund "union" is represented

/bund/ (cf. BUnde), even though both are pronounced [bath]. The ques-

tion arises, how does one represent non-alternating forms like weg"away" and ab "down", pronounced [vekh] and [?aph] respectively. If

the alternation condition does not constrain Devoicing, then either

/vek/ or /veg/ would do for weg, and /ap/ or /ab/ would do for ab. But

the mass of both historical and synchronic evidence is strongly against

any indeterminacy and strongly in favor of /vek/ and /ap/ as the cor-rect UFs, and by implication the correct natural phonemic forms (see

Kiparsky (1968b)). Since these forms are non-alternating, and since

the UFs correspond to the surface forms and not to the etymological

forms (which the spellings reflect), it looks like the AC is somehow

in effect. In fact what I think is going on is that the AC is only a

special case of a more general principle, and it was the particular

formulation of the AC that misled people into thinking that the level

of relevance for abstractness had to be transparent. So I will re-

formulate the AC as the Indolence Principle.

(14) The Indolence Principle--Always do the easiest thing. 17

Of course without specific proposals about the relative "ease" of

positing one solution over another (14) is meaningless, so the first

axiom of ease is:

(15) Ceteris paribus, a concrete solution is easier than an

abstract one.

(15) is intended to both replace the AC and to account for the Devoic-

ing case. In cases where segments do not alternate, the surface seg-

ment is chosen by this axiom.But what about the cases where we argued that a rule was exempt

538

from the AC, something more is going on because in such cases the ab-

stract solution is preferred over the concrete solution. We pointed

out,for example, that in Russian every instance of [j] is derived, even

the non-alternating ones. This leads to the second axiom of ease:

(16) Deriving every instance of a surface segment by one NP or

another from some one or other existing underlying segmentin various environments is easier than setting up an other-wise unnecessary new underlying segment.

Loosely what this means is that unless there is evidence to the con-

trary (say, because there is an instance of contrast) assume that

"similar" (i.e. related by natural substitutions) segments are allo-

phones. Notice that axiom (16) has precedence over axiom (15).

The case of English nasal assimilation provides as interesting

instance of how (15) and (16) interact. The rule in question is

given in (17); it is clearly an NP.

(17) Nasal Assimilation

+obsfl-' [e] / aF

where F represents the pointof articulation features.

Now where there is a non-alternating [-mp-] cluster, as in limp, the

UF is perceived as having an underlying /m/, but where there is a non-

alternating [-ok-] cluster, as in /ink,the UP is perceived as haying

an underlying /n/. In the case of the labial cluster axiom (15) is

applicable because there is already a need to recognize /m/ vs. /n/

in postvocalic tautosyllabic position, cf. [r5m] rum vs. [r5n] run.

But in the case of the velar cluster axiom (16) is applicable because

every instance of [g] is derivable from underlying /n/ by (17)9even though the situation is slightly obscured by the NP that deletes

/g/ word finally."

2. The A-and-B-both-become-C case. A classical example of the

A-and-B-both-become-C case of neutralization is the case of tap form-

ation in American English. The rule is given in (18).

(18) Tap Formation

t,d r/ V V

7

The question here is, given a non-alternating [-r-], what's the easi-est thing to do? Clearly by (16) the answer is not to set up an

underlying In, since every instance is transparently derived by (18),an NP. So how does one determine how to choose between /t/ and /d/ to

represent non-alternating [r] in UFs? The evidence is that instances

of non-alternating [r] represent underlying /t/. For example, there

are dialects with the rule in (19), functioning as an NP.

(19) ay + Ay / [-vd]

Evidence for (19) is given in (20).

539

(20) [hAypc] 'hyper' ,[hAybcneyt] 'hibernate'

Pgyfr] 'Eiffel (Tower)'[?Ayvp] 'Ivan'

[bAysp] 'bison'[vhzr] 'visor'

-[?Aykm;n] 'Eichman'[?Aygn] 'eigen (value)'

[nAytreyt] 'nitrate'[hAydreyti 'hydrate'

Now notice the words [spnyrc] spider and [sAyrr] cider (Johns (1989)),which must have underlying /t/ restructured from etymologic */d/ to get[-Ay-]. This leads to our third and last axiom of ease.

(21) Ceteris paribus, choosing the less "marked" of two possibleunderlying segments is easiest.

Furthermore, the theory of natural phonology provides a characterizationof the relative markedness of two "related" segments, namely, the onewhich can be derived from the other by some context-free natural sub-stitution. In this case the segment is t because there is a naturalsubstitution [+obs] [-vd], which will turnd into t.

FOOTNOTES

11 would like to thank Larry Nessly, Ken Hill, Fred Lupke, and espec-ially Charly Pyle for their suggestions and feedback on points devel-oped in this paper. Needless to say all errors, misconceptions, etc.

are my responsibility.2The claim that no NP is ordered among the "rules" is inaccurate in

the sense that in Stampe's view the contrary (or context-free) NPs"apply" (in some funny sense of application) to guarantee a uniformsegment inventory at all stages of the derivation upto and includingthe natural phonemic level, the level that Stampe calls underlying.This corresponds to Chonsky and Halle's (1968) notion of linking.

2Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any other term suitablefor naming this level. So I use the term natural phonemic hoping thatby using the modifier natural some of the inevitable confusion and mis-understanding can be alleviated."This view is only partially complete in several respects. The most

notable respect in which it is lacking is the failure to indicate wherefast speech processes fit in. At the moment it is not clear whether NPsfunctioning as fast speech processes apply only after the surface levelor whether the NPs functioning as fast speech processes may be ordered

among the NPs functioning "allophonically" as well.51 am assuming that the correct way to characterize which rules are

subject to the alternation condition is in terns of where they apply

in derivations. A look at a large number of cases makes this assump-tion appear at least reasonable, though it may turn out that ruleswhich are subject to the alternation condition are ordered among those

which are not. Since I know of no one who holds such a view at pre-

54-0

sent, I will blithely ignore the vast abyss of ignorance which facesone who does not make our assumption.6Some details about how v interacts with rule (4) are ignored because

they are complex and irrelevant to our argument.70ne of the reasons that transparency was thought to be the relevant

criterion relates to facts about language history. An appendix has beenincluded which discusses some of these facts.8Also by Ockham's razor, the level at which surface structure con4

straints are to be expressed is the natural phonemic level, since thereis evidence that that level must be more abstract than the surface aswe have defined it.9I will use the distinction between ruZe and process to distinguish

between substitutions which apply before the natural phonemic level(rules) and substitutions which apply after the natural phonemic level(processes), and I will use the term substitution as a generic to 'refer to both rules (natural or not) and processes."See Kiparsky (1971) for an explanation of the notion of rule opacity.110f course natural substitutions functioning as fast speech processes

are not so restricted.12There is at least one case where some piling up is allowed in adult

speech. In palatalizing environments /t/ can be substituted for by [6],presumably by the chain of processes t t 4 c 6. Possibly this hasto do with the fact that [t], [c], and [6] are all very close acoustic-ally, whereas in most other chains, like the 1-z chain, none of thesubstitutes is particularly close to any of the others acoustically."The clause of Opaqueness that is relevant here is the one whicharises in antifeeding situations.14See Kiparsky's discussion of the Sanskrit k 4 6 rule (Kiparsky (1968)).15In fact the null hypothesis for the child is that natural substit-

utions apply freely unless there is evidence to the contrary.16Charlr- Pyle pointed this out to me. Actually limiting this only to

ordering is incomplete. It's not at all unlikely that any principlesgoverning rule interaction, globality, transderivationality, disjunc-tive application, etc., have differing availabilities to the two blocksof substitutions. It's my feeling that globality, transderivationality,and disjunction are relevant only to rules, while extrinsic orderingconstraints govern process interactions, but I have no real evidence.17Charley Pyle has proposed a similar condition for somewhat different

reasons, and has greatly influenced my thinking in this direction to thepoint where I can't distinguish which ideas where originally mine andwhich his."Axiom (16) needs some further tightening down, because in Santa ClaraTewa (Randy Speirs, personnel communication) there is a similar situationto that in English with respect to nasal assimilation,. In particular (17)is a rule of Tewa, and both /m/ and /n/ are needed in UFs. However everyinstance of postvocalic, tautosyllabic [m] is derived by (17) and isperceived as an instance of /n/, not /m/ as (16) would suggest. It islikely that this situation could be turned into an argument for thereality of morpheme structure conditions, and (16) could be made torespect MS conditions..

541

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chomeky, Noam, and Morris Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English.

. New York: Harper and Row.Halle, Morris (1959) Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Jakobson, Roman (1968) Child Language, Anhasia, and Phonological

Universals. Tr. A. Keiler. The Hague: Mouton.Johns751;1717(1969) "Phonemics and Generative Phonology". Papers

from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago LinguisticSociety. 374-381.

Kiparsky, Paul (1968a) "How Abstract is Phonology?" (unpub. MIT paper).

• - (1968b) "Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change".

Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, ed., Universals in Linguistic

Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 170-202.(1971) "Historical'Linguistics". William O. Dingwall,

ed. A Survey of Linguistic Science. College Park: Univ. of Mary-land7Press.57Z:649.

Stampe, David (1969) "The Acquisition of Phonetic Representation".Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

Society. 443-454.(1971) "On Chapter Nine", to appear in Proceedings of

the University of Illinois Phonology Conference.(1972s7mOn the Natural History of Diphthongs". Papers

from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

Society. 578-590.(1972b) How I Spent &Summer Vacation. Unpublished

University of Chicago PhD Dissertation, under the title "A

Dissertation on Natural Phonology".

Trofimov, Mikhail, and Daniel Jones (1923) The Pronunciation ofRussian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.