3uhvv 6wdeoh 85

7RZDUGV�D�/H[LFDO�$QDO\VLV�RI�6RXQG�&KDQJH�LQ�3URJUHVV$XWKRU�V��-RKQ�+DUULV6RXUFH��-RXUQDO�RI�/LQJXLVWLFV��9RO��1R��0DU��SS��3XEOLVKHG�E\��&DPEULGJH�8QLYHUVLW\�3UHVV6WDEOH�85/��http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175975 .$FFHVVHG��

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofLinguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.99.36.140 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 02:53:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175975?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


J. Linguistics 25 (1989), 35-56. Printed in Great Britain

Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress1

JOHN HARRIS

Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London

(Received 24 May I988; revised I August I988)

I. INTRODUCTION

Lexical Phonologists have made a number of claims that are directly relevant to the study of sound change in progress, two of which I wish to examine here. First, phonetically gradient patterns of variation are alleged to be controlled by rules which operate outside the lexicon. Second, phonological rules applying within the lexicon may only refer to feature values that are already marked in underlying representations. This paper sets out to test these claims against empirical data of the sort that have been reported in the sociolinguistic literature. While the first claim appears to be in tune with some informal analyses already offered by sociolinguists, the second is contradicted by at least some of the evidence.

Section 2 sets out the basic questions about sound change that are at issue here. In Section 3, I provide a very brief overview of Lexical Phonology together with a presentation of the claims that the theory makes in relation to sound change. In Section 4, I discuss how the fully regular and phonetically gradient nature of some patterns of variation can be considered consistent with an analysis under which they are governed by post-lexical phonological rules. In Sections 5 and 6, drawing on the literature on social and regional dialectology, I present examples of phonological rules which clearly apply within the lexicon but which fail to preserve structure. That is, contrary to predictions made by Lexical Phonology, they introduce into lexical derivations feature values which are not underlyingly distinctive. I conclude in Section 7 with a discussion of how such non-structure-preserving patterns can be viewed as one of the routes by which intrinsic phonetic contrasts become phonemicized over time.

2. THE NEOGRAMMARIAN CONTROVERSY

What has come to be known as the Neogrammarian controversy (Labov, I98I) boils down to three basic questions concerning the nature of

[i] This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper which was read at New ways of analyzing variation XV (Stanford, October, I986) and which subsequently appeared in an informal publication of the conference proceedings (Denning et al., 1987). My thanks to Nigel Vincent, Malcah Yaeger-Dror and two anonymous JL reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts.

35 2-2



JOHN HARRIS

phonological change. (a) Is sound change phonetically continuous or discrete? (b) Is it subject to morphosyntactic conditioning? (c) Is it lexically regular? Valuable evidence bearing on these issues has been supplied by sociolinguistic studies of sound change in progress. However, on the face of it, much of this evidence appears to be conflicting. What I want to do here is attempt to resolve these apparent contradictions by reinterpreting sociolinguists' findings within the theoretical framework of Lexical Pho- nology. The stimulus for this endeavour comes from a number of claims made by Lexical Phonologists regarding issues of phonological variation and change.

The traditional Neogrammarian position is that sound change is phonetically gradual, uncontaminated by morphosyntactic conditioning and lexically regular. However, this view is contradicted by studies of changes which evidently proceed in a phonetically abrupt and lexically irregular fashion (see, for instance, the papers in Wang, 1977). Investigations of phonological change in progress appear to bear out both positions. On the one hand, we have evidence, much of it supported by instrumental measurement, that at least some changes conform to the classic Neo- grammarian scenario (e.g. Labov, Yaeger & Steiner, I972). While in progress, such changes typically show up as phonetically continuous patterns of variation which are subject to regular phonological conditioning. On the other hand, sociolinguistic studies have also uncovered examples of on-going lexical diffusion (e.g. J. Milroy, I980). These characteristically involve lexically selective alternations between phonemically distinct and hence phonetically discrete variants.

According to Labov (I98i), the apparent contradiction here can be resolved by assuming that we are dealing with two different types of change operating at different levels of the grammar. Neogrammarian sound change proper takes the form of modifications to low-level phonetic output rules, while lexical diffusion occurs at a 'more abstract' level and involves the redistribution of one 'abstract' word class into another (I981: 304). He also suggests that the level at which a given change operates is dependent to a large extent on the particular phonetic or phonological feature involved. Thus, changes in low-level output rules typically involve such processes as fronting/backing or raising/lowering of vowels and lenition of consonants. Lexical diffusion, in contrast, involves more 'abstract' features such as those implicated in tensing/laxing or lengthening/shortening or diphthongization/ monophthongization of vowels and place-of-articulation shifts in consonants.

Two points are in need of clarification here. Firstly, how are we to interpret the notion 'more abstract' when referring to the levels at which different sorts of phonological change operate? Secondly, what justification is there for assuming that there is a connection between the feature involved in a particular change and the grammatical level at which the change

36



LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF SOUND CHANGE

operates? Both of these questions, I want to argue, receive insightful answers when posed within the framework of Lexical Phonology. The relative 'abstractness' of the level at which a given phonological rule applies can be interpreted in terms of the rule's status vis-ai-vis the lexicon, that is in terms of whether it applies lexically or post-lexically. As to the second question, the position I will be arguing for here is that the grammatical level at which a change occurs is in principle independent of the phonetic or phonological feature involved. In other words, we can track the progress of a change along two independent dimensions: through phonological or phonetic space (involving alterations to feature specifications) and through different levels of linguistic structure. A typical progression is for sound changes to begin life as modifications to low-level output rules and then over time to penetrate deeper and deeper into the linguistic system. From the perspective of Lexical Phonology, this process can be viewed as the progressive infiltration of lexical structure by phonological rules.

3. LEXICAL PHONOLOGY

In the following discussion, I will assume a more or less orthodox version of Lexical Phonology, as presented by Kiparsky (I982, I985), Kaisse & Shaw (I985), Mohanan (I986) and others. Briefly, the main outlines of the theory are as follows. Phonological rule application involves three modules in the grammar: the phonological rule component itself, the lexicon and the post- lexical stratum (at which words are combined in syntactic structure). Each rule is specified for the domain in which it applies: within the lexicon, or post-lexically, or at both levels.

The lexicon itself is assumed to be composed of two or more ordered levels or strata at which different types of word-formation process operate. According to one view, the number of lexical levels varies from language to language. As far as English is concerned, there is general agreement that the well-established distinction between Class-I and Class-I1 affixation should be represented as a stratal difference in the lexicon. There is, however, disagreement about whether more than two levels need to be recognized in order to accommodate compounding and regular inflexion. The overall number of lexical levels has been variously put at three (Kiparsky, I982) or four (Halle & Mohanan, I985). More recently, however, Booij & Rubach (I987) have proposed that, universally, only two levels are motivated in the lexicon: one cyclic, the other post-cyclic.

The material to be discussed here can be quite adequately handled under the two-level arrangement. In particular, I will assume that Class-I affixation and irregular inflexion occur at Stratum I and that Class-1I affixation, compounding and regular inflexion occur at Stratum 2. Each phonological rule operating in the lexicon is specified for the level(s) at which it applies. Rules operating at Stratum I apply cyclically: those operating at Stratum 2

37



JOHN HARRIS

apply post-cyclically (i.e. at word level). The principle of lexical rule application thus incorporates the insight that some forms have to be processed phonologically during the course of word formation. During a derivation, forms are subject to Bracket Erasure, according to which internal brackets are deleted at the end of each stratum. One effect of this is that phonological rules operating at a given level cannot access internal morphological structure derived on an earlier level.

Among the properties which identify a phonological rule as applying lexically are the following (conveniently summarized in Pulleyblank, I986: 7): it may be sensitive to word-internal morphology; it may not apply across words; and it may sustain lexical exceptions. Post-lexical rule application, on the other hand, implies insensitivity to word-internal structure, the possibility of applying across word boundaries and absence of lexical exceptions. The post-lexical level is by definition non-cyclic. Cyclic lexical rules are subject to Strict Cyclicity, whereby they are barred from changing structure in non- derived environments (Kiparsky, 1982; Halle & Mohanan, 1985).

A further property that distinguishes lexical from post-lexical rule application involves the following principle (Kiparsky, 1985: 92):

(i) Structure preservation Conditions on the marking of feature values in underived lexical representations are also applicable to derived lexical representations.

That is, rules applying in the lexicon may not add to the inventory of segments that are present in underlying structure. Post-lexical rules, in contrast, are free to augment the segment inventory during the course of a derivation. For example, the rule which aspirates initial voiceless plosives in English is non-structure-preserving in that it introduces a feature which is not underlyingly distinctive: under principle (i), it is thus identified as applying post-lexically.

As Kiparsky has noted (1985: 135n), it might prove necessary to allow the Structure Preservation filter to be switched off at some point during the course of lexical derivation. One obvious possibility here is that the constraint parallels Strict Cyclicity in being restricted to cyclic domains. In terms of the two-level lexicon being assumed here, this would mean that only Stratum-i rules must be structure-preserving. In fact, I will be arguing that even this relaxed version of the constraint is too strong and that at least some Stratum-I rules fail to preserve structure.

The principle of Structure Preservation figures prominently in two claims made by Lexical Phonologists in relation to issues of phonological variation and change. These can be formulated as follows:

(2) (a) Gradient patterns of variation are controlled by rules which apply post-lexically. Any rule operating within the lexicon necessarily involves categorical distinctions.

38




(b) Only post-lexical rules may introduce 'novel' structure, i.e. feature values that are not marked in underlying representation.

In what follows, I set out to test these claims against empirical data of the sort that have been supplied by sociolinguistic studies of sound change in progress. Some sociolinguists' analyses of these findings, although formulated within a rather different theoretical framework, can be shown to echo the spirit of prediction (2 a). Prediction (2 b), however, is not borne out by the data. It is possible to demonstrate that certain patterns of variation involve rules which do not respect Structure Preservation but which otherwise exhibit properties usually considered diagnostic of lexical application. In fact, a case can be made for saying that such patterns represent the route by which originally Neogrammarian sound changes penetrate lexical structure.

4. GRADIENT PATTERNS OF VARIATION

Structure Preservation implies that lexical rules only operate with categorical distinctions - categorical, not in the sense of IOO per cent applicability, but in the sense that they refer to phonologically distinctive and hence phonetically discrete contrasts. Phonetically continuous patterns of realization can thus only be controlled by post-lexical rules. This claim is very much in keeping with analyses of variation which, although not couched in the same theoretical terms, have been proposed in the sociolinguistic literature.

Quantitative studies of gradient patterns of variation have typically focussed on vowel shifting. Among such changes to have been investigated in English, we may note the following: raising of tense ingliding vowels and lowering of lax vowels in northern cities of the United States (Labov et al., I972), backing of 'broad a' in Norwich (Trudgill, 1974) and backing of tense x in Belfast (Harris, I985). All such patterns, Labov (I98I) contends, are to be analysed as involving modifications to low-level output rules. Besides proceeding in a phonetically gradual fashion, these shifts share the characteristics of being lexically exceptionless and subject to regular phonological conditioning. They thus bear the hallmarks of Neogrammarian sound change. The combination of non-structure-preserving effects and the absence of lexical selectivity falls out from an analysis which treats the rules controlling such patterns as having post-lexical status.

5. INTRODUCING 'NOVEL' STRUCTURE IN THE LEXICON

We turn now to an examination of two rules which contradict the second of the predictions in (2), namely that 'novel' feature values are necessarily assigned post-lexically.

39



JOHN HARRIS

The first example involves the variable realization of coronal non- continuants as dental (as opposed to alveolar) in Belfast (quantified in Milroy et al., I983, and Harris, I985). The general English pattern is for t, d, n, 1 to assimilate the dental value of a following 0 or d, as in eigh[ftJ], sai[d: 6]at, te[n0], wi[l 8]e. Since the alveolar-dental contrast is not underlyingly distinctive for non-continuants in English, Structure Pre- servation predicts that the rule assigning the dental value to t, d, n, I can only apply post-lexically. This is confirmed by the other properties of the general English rule: it is 'blind' to morphological structure (applying both word- internally and across word boundaries), and it is lexically exceptionless.

In Belfast, dental realizations of coronal noncontinuants also appear variably before (a)r, as in:

(3) Dental t, d, n, 1 (a) [t]rain, [d]rain (b) ma[t]er, la[d],er, spa[n]er, pi[l]ar (c) sani[t]ary, eleme[nt]ary

Assuming that both dentals and r are [+ distributed], we may formulate this pattern of dentalization as an assimilation process:

(4) Dentalization (Belfast) [-cont]

CORONAL

[+ distr] Our investigations revealed that, unlike the general English dental

assimilation rule, the Belfast rule is sensitive to morphological structure. It applies variably both morpheme-internally (as in (3 a) and (3 b)) and across Class-I affixes (as in (3 c)). However, we encountered no tokens in which the rule applied across Class-II affixes or across compound, inflexional, or word boundaries:

(5) Alveolar t, d, n, 1 (a) shou[t]er, ru[n]er, ki[l]er (b) foo[t]rest, be[d]room, su[n]roof, bu[l]ring (c) la[t]er, lou[d]er,fi[n]er (d) bu[t] remember, goo[d] riddance, ru[n] round, ca[l] Rose

The same surface contrast is found in the rural hinterland of Belfast. Gregg cites the following minimal pairs in Ulster Scots: [liider] 'heavy blow' vs. [liid-ar] 'louder', bou[ld]er vs. bo[ld]-ar (I964: I85).

Within Lexical Phonology, the morphological blocking effect just

40




illustrated is achieved by assuming that dental realizations in r contexts are assigned after Class-I affixation has taken place but before Class-II affixation, compounding, and regular inflexion, and before words are concatenated in syntactic structure. In other words, rule (4) applies at Stratum I of the Belfast lexicon, as in the following partial derivation:

(6) MORPHOLOGY PHONOLOGY trip matter fitter footrest trip] matr] fit], r] fut], rst]

Stratum I

trip] mxtr] - Dentalization

Stratum 2 Affixation fit]r] Compounding fut]rEst]

Other rules

Output [trip] [metar] [fitar] [futrcst]

Once Dentalization has applied at Stratum I, it is no longer available to process forms derived at Stratum 2 or at phrase level.2

In Belfast Dentalization (4) we have a rule which displays at least one characteristic that is diagnostic of lexical application, namely sensitivity to word-internal morphological structure. Having established that the rule applies at Stratum I of the lexicon, we may now check whether it conforms to the conditions which operate at that level. Strict Cyclicity is not violated: the rule is non-neutralizing and is thus free to apply in non-derived environments, as in trip and matter in (6). However, by introducing a contrast that is not underlyingly distinctive, the rule fails to respect Structure Preservation.

[2] An alternative, SPE-like analysis, under which rule (4) is assigned to Stratum 2 and blocked by ']', is not available within Lexical Phonology. Within the SPE framework, the blocking effect is achieved by the arbitrary stipulation that word boundaries (' ' and '##') block phonological rule application unless explicitly included in a rule's structural description; the formative boundary (' + '), in contrast, does not have this blocking property (Chomsky & Halle, I968: 364 ff.). The Dentalization rule will apply to all the forms in (3), since they contain either ' +' or no internal boundary at all. The rule will not apply to those in (5), since they contain '#' (5 a, c) or '#' (5 b, d). Lexical Phonology is more restrictive in this respect: there is only one type of boundary (symbolized as '[' or ']'), and the assumption is made that it can trigger but not block phonological rule application (see Mohanan, 1986: 130). The latter theory provides the desired blocking effect through independently- motivated principles of domain assignment - in this case, as the derivation in (6) illustrates, by assigning rule (4) to Stratum i. Once this rule has applied at its designated stratum, it is no longer available to process forms derived at later levels.

4'



JOHN HARRIS

6. TENSING OF SHORT X

6. I. Introduction

Let us now give more detailed consideration to another rule which, in at least some dialects of English, clearly applies within the lexicon but which fails to respect Structure Preservation. The rule in question involves the well- researched tensing of historically short stressed x. The exact phonetic interpretation of tensing is somewhat controversial (see Lass, 1976: 39 if.). In discussions of short x, the term is generally used as a cover-label for a number of developments, including an increase in peripherality and duration, front-raising and the development of a centring off-glide. Earlier treatments of the phenomenon subsume all of these under one rule (e.g. Trager, 1940). However, Labov et al. (1972: 70 ff.) present good reasons for assuming that at least two processes are involved: a raising rule is fed by an independent rule which triggers an increase in peripherality and duration. Following their practice, I will reserve the term x-Tensing for the latter. One justification of this analysis is that x-Tensing is subject to environmental constraints which are rather different from those operating in the case of raising. Moreover, x-Tensing does not go hand-in-hand with raising in all dialects. In some, tensing feeds a backing rule; in others, it is accompanied by neither backing nor raising.

p t c k ..........................................

b d 5 g! ...................

m n I.

f 0 s ------- ---- --- ----- -- ------ ___ *~ ~ 5 5

.....................

Philadelphia - - - - New York City ---------- Belfast ..........

Figure I Conditioning of ?-Tensing by following consonant: 'core' patterns for three dialects

(cf. Labov, I98I: 285)

6.2. The basic pattern

Short stressed x has undergone unconditional tensing in some varieties of English, including those spoken in the west of Scotland (Harris, I985) and in northern United States cities such as Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Syracuse and

42




Rochester (Labov et al., 1972). In other areas, the process has been contextually determined, resulting in the dissolution of the short-c class into two phonetically discrete vowels: a lax reflex and a tense reflex which has been subject to the various qualitative developments just mentioned. The basic structure of the conditioned tensing rule is as follows (taking [-tense] as the default value):

(7) a- Tensing

Os

F+lowl [-back] [ + tense] / x x

-[F] F = see core patterns (Figure i).

That is, x is tensed when it occurs in a stressed syllable that is closed by a certain type of consonant. (The abbreviation o-, can be taken here to represent a syllable that is aligned with the requisite number of marks on the metrical grid.) The class of tautosyllabic following consonants which condition tensing varies from dialect to dialect. Figure I outlines three dialect-specific 'core' patterns. Common to all of these is the retention of the lax reflex before voiceless stops. In New York City and surrounding areas, the tense reflex is generally found before voiced stops, anterior nasals and anterior voiceless fricatives (Trager, 1940; Labov et al., I972: 47 ff.). In Philadelphia, tensing is generally restricted to the latter two contexts (Ferguson, I972). In Belfast, the tense reflex has a much wider distribution, occurring in all the New York City contexts as well as before voiced fricatives and / (Harris, i985). Thus, in all three of these dialects, the lax reflex occurs in words such as those in (8 a) (because they contain non-tensing consonants) and (8 b) (because the following consonants, even if otherwise tensing, are not tautosyllabic with x); the tense reflex occurs in words containing tautosyllabic tensing consonants such as those in (8 c).3

(8) Lax: (a) tap, bat, match, back,... (b) panel, ladder, wagon,...

Tense: (c) pass, path, laugh, man, Sam,...

[31 All of the syllabic conditions on x-Tensing are stated here under the widely-held assumption that syllabification involves only proper bracketing, i.e. every segment belongs to one syllable only. On some views, intervocalic consonants such as those in (8b) are ambisyllabic (see, for instance, Fallows, I98I). As far as the data discussed here are concerned, nothing crucial hinges on this issue. Under an analysis which admits ambisyllabicity, xe-Tensing can simply be reformulated so as to apply only before consonants which are exclusively bracketed with the nucleus (at the relevant point in the derivation).

43



JOHN HARRIS

Similar patterns are reported for dialects as widely dispersed as Hampshire in southern England (Fudge, 1977) and parts of Australia (Laycock, I 966).

6.3. Lexical status of x- Tensing

Where in the grammar does the tensing rule apply? Structure Preservation makes the prediction that, if [ ? tense] is not underlyingly distinctive, the rule necessarily applies post-lexically.

The fundamental dichotomy of the English vowel system, which is implicated in such processes as Vowel Shift and stress assignment, was characterized in SPE in terms of a [?tense] distinction. This two-set arrangement has subsequently been reformulated as a long-short contrast (e.g. Lass, 1976: ch. I), which in autosegmental terms translates as a difference in prosodic structure (e.g. Halle & Mohanan, 1985). (A short nucleus is represented as a vowel attached to one timing slot (as in (7)), while a long nucleus is attached to two.) One of the justifications for this move comes from the need to constrain stress rules so that they can access elements in metrical structure but not phonetic features. (In the less constrained SPE framework, there was no principled way of excluding non-occurring stress rules which were sensitive to the phonetic identity of individual segments (e.g. 'stress any nucleus specified as [+back]').) Thus, according to current thinking, quantity-sensitive stress rules such as those that operate in English make reference to the distinction between branching ('long') and non- branching ('short') nuclei and cannot be conditioned by features such as [? tense].

Since, under the more recent analysis, [+tense] is assumed not to be distinctive underlyingly, the rule of x-Tensing should be expected to apply post-lexically if Structure Preservation is to be respected. This is in fact what Halle & Mohanan explicitly propose (I985: ioi). Halle & Mohanan's tense- 2 data are drawn from Trager, 1930. However, Trager's later discussions of the phenomenon (e.g. 1940) point to the conclusion that the x class has undergone a phonemic split in the relevant dialects. More recent work conducted by Labov and his co-workers seems to confirm this conclusion. They cite three pieces of evidence which have a bearing on the issue.

(a) In some of the x-Tensing dialects, the rule exhibits a degree of unpredictable lexical and morphological selectivity. In Philadelphia, for example, mad, bad, and glad have tense nuclei, although d is not otherwise part of the 'core' tensing environments in this dialect (see Ferguson, 1972). On the other hand, the strong-verb forms ran, began, swam contain lax nuclei, even though anterior nasals otherwise condition tensing. It should be noted that such lexical irregularities are by no means characteristic of all 2-Tensing dialects. In Belfast, for example, the rule appears to be fully regular.

(b) There is evidence that non-natives have difficulty in acquiring the

44




tensing pattern. Payne (I980) demonstrates how children from out-of-state families have less than complete success in learning the Philadelphia pattern. This is explainable if we assume that acquisition in this case involves learning a categorical contrast on a word-by-word basis rather than a general rule of allophony.

(c) Labov (I98i) reports the results of experimental tests in which New York City and Philadelphia respondents show categorical discrimination of the tense and lax classes.

Labov's (I98I) conclusion is that the tensing of historically short 2 has resulted in a restructuring of the underlying phoneme inventory in some dialects (including the type described by Trager (1940) and Halle & Mohanan (I985)). In the context of the theoretical assumptions that were current at that time, this conclusion seems reasonable. However, from the perspective of Lexical Phonology, the phonological analysis of the short-c pattern is underdetermined by the three types of evidence just mentioned. It would be equally possible, in terms of this theory, to argue (contra, Halle & Mohanan, 1985) that the rule of a-Tensing in these dialects applies in the lexicon. This would be consistent with the observation that the tense-x pattern sustains sporadic lexical exceptions, this being one of the characteristics of lexical rule application. Moreover, the categorical discrimination evidence can be accommodated under this analysis, since Lexical Phonologists have argued that speakers' judgments regarding the sameness or distinctness of sounds are based, not on the underlying segment inventory, but on the lexical inventory, i.e. the output of the lexical rules (e.g. Mohanan & Mohanan, I984; Mohanan, I986: I86 ff.).

This analysis is attractive for the reason that it allows us to give formal expression to the notion 'core pattern' as a way of identifying the distribution of short-x reflexes in different dialects. Such a notion is explicitly encapsulated in the x-Tensing rule but is not available under an analysis which assumes a complete restructuring of the underlying segment inventory.

6.4. Morphological conditioning

There is further evidence which confirms the lexical status of a-Tensing in some dialects. The distribution of the tense versus lax contrast in the three dialect types illustrated in Figure I is sensitive to word-internal morphology. The effects of the rule manifest themselves in forms containing a surface heterosyllabic tensing consonant if this is immediately followed by a word- internal morpheme boundary. Thus, in both New York City and Belfast, for instance, we find the lax reflex of x in forms such as those in (9 a) but the tense reflex in (9b).

(g) (a) Lax: manner, wagon, dagger (b) Tense: dragger, manning, wagging, man hours, drag artist

45



JOHN HARRIS

The pattern is quite regular before word-level boundaries (Class-Il, inflexional, or compound) but is subject to some fluctuation before Class-I boundaries. (The social and regional dimensions of this variability have yet to be systematically investigated.) For example, Kiparsky cites the following Class-I-derived words as having tense x for most speakers in Philadelphia: class-ify, gas-ify, photograph-ic. Some speakers, however, have lax e in these words. Before considering the implications of this variability, let us note how the morphological sensitivity of the rule can be accounted for within Lexical Phonology.

Let us assume that a-Tensing applies after the tensing consonants in forms such as those in (9b) have been syllabified with x but before the consonants are resyllabified with a following nucleus later in the derivation. This result can be achieved by assigning the rule to Stratum I, as illustrated in the following partial derivation (E = tensed x):

(I O)

MORPHOLOGY PHONOLOGY man manning manner

man] man], In] manr]

Stratum I A A A A Syllabi- man] mxn] mxnr] fication

mA5n] mA,n] x-Tensing

Stratum 2 Affixation mA3n]in]

A A Syllabi- mA5n]in] fication

Post-lexical mEan mEanin Raising

Output [mean] [meanin] [mrxna(r)]

Since Stratum I is a cyclic domain, the prediction is that the tenseness assigned to x in underived forms will be retained in forms derived by Class-I suffixation, even if resyllabification takes place on a later cycle.4 This indeed is the pattern for those speakers who produce tense x in class-ify, gas-ify,

[4] Note that, as formulated in (7), x-Tensing is a feature-specifying and not a feature- changing rule. As such, it is not subject to Strict Cyclicity and is thus free to apply in underived environments (as in man in (io)).

46




photograph-ic, etc. How then do we account for those speakers who show lax a in these forms? One possible explanation is that such speakers treat these words as underived (on this point, see Kiparsky, I988: 40I and Harris, in press). In that case the structural description of x-Tensing is not met, since the otherwise tensing consonants are not syllabified with x at any stage of the derivation. Compare the derivations of classify in the two sorts of system (omitting the Vowel Shift details which affect ay) :

(I I) System A B MORPHOLOGY PHONOLOGY

klxs], Ifay] klxsifay]

Stratum I Cycle I A AA ,1 Syllabi-

klxs] klxsifay] fication

kl1Es] --Tensing

Cycle 2 Affixation klAEs] ifay]

A A a, Syllabi- klAEs] ifay] fication

---- x-Tensing

Other rules

Output [kl&gsifay] [klxsifay] The conclusion that x-Tensing applies at Stratum I in certain dialects has

independently been reached by Kiparsky (I988).5 Drawing on material from Philadelphia, he presents several additional arguments in favour of this analysis (1988: 400-2).

(a) Rules which cause syllables to become closed only after Stratum I do not feed x-Tensing. One such rule, which for independent reasons cannot apply until Stratum 2 at the earliest, deletes an unstressed vowel before an unstressed syllable beginning with a sonorant. As predicted, forms such as fam'ly, Cath'lic do not have tense nuclei.

(b) Kiparsky explains the failure of x-Tensing to apply to the strong-verb forms ran, swam, began by ordering the rule before the relevant past-tense ablaut rule. The latter must apply at Stratum I for independent reasons, which implies that x-Tensing must itself also apply at that stratum.

15] I did not have access to Kiparsky's article until after the original version of the present paper had gone to press.

47



JOHN HARRIS

(c) If x-Tensing is a lexical rule, it follows that it should not apply to non- lexical categories. This is correct; the auxiliaries had, am, can and the article an do not have tense nuclei in the relevant Atlantic seaboard dialects.

(d) Instances of x derived from underlying long x: (e.g. through the Stratum-i rule of Trisyllabic Shortening) are correctly predicted to be lax even when followed by a tautosyllabic tensing consonant on the first cycle. For example, san-ity has lax x because at no point in its derivation does the nucleus meet the structural description of x-Tensing: on the first cycle the nucleus is long, and on the second it appears in an open syllable. Similarly, lax x is correctly predicted in words such as humanity for the reason that xe is unstressed on the first cycle and appears in an open syllable on the second.

Given its lexical status under this analysis, we expect x-Tensing to be structure-preserving. Whether this is indeed the case depends on whether a tense-lax contrast is present in underived lexical items. In the case of some dialects at least, including New York City and Philadelphia, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such a contrast must exist, however marginal it might be. Although the majority of surface occurrences of the tense vowel can be derived by means of a-Tensing, there remains a residue of exceptional forms which must have the vowel specified for tenseness in their lexical representations (e.g. mad, bad, glad in Philadelphia). In such dialects, then, x-Tensing does not introduce a novel feature marking into lexical derivations.

However, in other dialects such as that of Belfast, there is no motivation for recognizing an underlying tense-lax contrast, since the rule does not have any lexical exceptions. As with the Belfast Dentalization rule, (4) ?-Tensing in these dialects contravenes Structure Preservation. In being sensitive to word-internal morphology, the rule bears one of the hallmarks of lexical application; yet in introducing an underlyingly non-distinctive contrast into lexical derivations, it fails to preserve structure.

6.5. Three developments in the tensing of a

A survey of the consonantal environments conditioning x-Tensing in widely dispersed dialects of English reveals a recurrent pattern of implicational weighting based primarily on values for voicing and manner of articulation (for the details, see Harris I986). Broadly speaking (ignoring place-of- articulation details), the implicational hierarchy is (ordered from most to least favourable):6

(I2) voiceless voiced oral voiceless fricatives > nasals > non-continuants stops

[6] The ordering of consonants on the hierarchy relates to tensing/lengthening only; raising of x involves a different set of implicational weightings. For the purposes of cross-dialect

48




For example, any dialect that shows a-Tensing before nasals also shows it before voiceless fricatives; the occurrence of tense reflexes before voiceless stops in any dialect implies their occurrence in all other contexts. There are good grounds for supposing that this systematic phonological conditioning reflects a natural phonetic tendency, ultimately relatable to aspects of articulatory dynamics, for certain segments to favour lengthening of preceding vowels more than others. This suggests that, historically at least, a-Tensing was a phonetically motivated sound change. In other words, it probably began life as a phonetic output rule, an assumption which is supported by comparative dialect evidence: even dialects lacking a fully phonologized reflex of x-Tensing appear to have a low-level version of it. (See, for instance, Gimson's discussion of the phenomenon in British 'Received Pronunciation' (I962: IOO).) If this assumption is correct, it is no longer justified to claim, as Labov (I98I) does, that changes involving the feature [?tense] are necessarily tied to a 'more abstract' level of the grammar. The fact that, in certain dialects, the rule now displays non- Neogrammarian characteristics, such as lexical selectivity and morphological conditioning, is, I would argue, simply a reflexion of the age of the process.

Viewing the history of ax-Tensing as the phonologization of a phonetically motivated sound change, we can consider the varying synchronic effects of the change in different dialects as reflecting differing depths to which it has penetrated linguistic structure. In particular, we can identify three main developments (summarized in Table I):

Type I. phonologization as a post-lexical rule. This appears to be the northern US cities and western Scottish development. Tensing applies across the board, displaying no lexical selectivity and no interaction with word-internal morphology.

Type II: phonologization as a lexical rule. This is the pattern encountered in New York City, Philadelphia and Belfast. Tensing has become implicated in morphological structure and, in some cases at least, subject to sporadic lexical selectivity, both properties that are diagnostic of lexical status.

Type III. restructuring. Here there has been a full-blown split in the historical short-a class. This is the pattern we find in some non-rhotic dialects with 'broad a'. The tensed reflex has undergone merger (in some cases

comparison, voiced continuants are omitted from the hierarchy for the following reason. Sequences of short x plus tautosyllabic voiced fricative occur either in typically unstressed contexts (e.g. have, has, as), where the tensing possibilities are greatly reduced, or in words which were borrowed or coined too late to participate fully in the original tensing process in some dialects (e.g. jazz, Daz, Bas). Lengthening of originally short vowels before historical r is much older than ?-Tensing and has affected virtually all dialects of English.

49



JOHN HARRIS

Table i Three developments in the tensing of short a in English (aE = tense x)

Dialect Underlying Post- Other type representation Lexical lexical rules Output

I bat ax-Tensing Raising [n- ia]

pass

II bat [e] (a) X pass x-Tensing Raising [ca - ia]

bat [X] (b)

pass x-Tensing Backing [ca]

III bat I[T] (a) pass AE [f]

bat 2[a] (b)

pass a [a:]

I: Northern US cities (Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago). II: (a) Mid Atlantic US (New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore); (b) Belfast. III: (a) Norwich; (b) British 'Received Pronunciation'.

accompanied by backing) with the vocalized reflex of historical ar and, before labials, al. Thus pass, path, dance, etc. have the same vowel (e.g. a: in British 'Received Pronunciation') as that in card, farce, barn, calm, etc. The majority of words in this class are non-alternating, which makes it impossible to motivate a-Tensing as a synchronic rule in these dialects. Given the merger, learners have no way of reconstructing the original tense-a class. It thus makes sense to assume that these dialects have undergone a restructuring of the underlying phoneme inventory.

The three dialect-types just outlined illustrate the interaction of a number of developments in the evolution of x-Tensing: phonologization, rule simplification, rule lexicalization and lexical diffusion. If the suggestion made earlier is correct, the tensing process came into being through the phonologization of an intrinsic phonetic contrast conditioned by the following consonantal context. Once established, the rule was free to develop

50




through phonological space and through different levels of the grammar. Type-I dialects show the most advanced development of the rule through phonological space: the structural description of the rule has been generalized to all stressed environments, regardless of the identity of the following consonant. In type-II dialects, the rule has undergone varying extents of simplification, but in all cases it retains some degree of consonantal conditioning. On comparative grounds, it makes sense to assume that the core tensing environments shared by all such dialects (anterior nasals and voiceless fricatives - see Figure I) represent the 'earliest' context to have been affected by the process.

Its sensitivity to word-internal morphological structure indicates that ff- Tensing, as it operates in type-IT dialects, has made the transition from post- lexical to lexical status. The most likely mechanism involved here is analogical levelling.7 A derivationally complex form such as scanner presumably acquired its tense-x nucleus by analogy with underived scan, even though its surface syllable structure does not meet the structural description of the original tensing process.

According to the theory of Lexical Phonology, any rule that undergoes lexicalization as a result of analogical levelling is granted access to all aspects of lexical structure which were previously hidden from it when it operated post-lexically. One such effect is the ability to sustain lexical exceptions. So once lexicalized, a given change is free to become subject to lexical diffusion. In fact, as Kiparsky points out (I988: 399), the theory of Lexical Phonology makes the apparently correct prediction that ONLY contrasts which are present in the lexical segment inventory (the output of lexical phonological rules) are susceptible to lexical diffusion. As far as we know, 'allophonic' contrasts, which are processed post-lexically, are never involved in lexically- selective change. (See Harris (in press) for a fuller discussion.) Lexical diffusion is apparently what has happened in those type-II dialects in which the lexical incidence of the tense-x reflex has been extended in a phonologically irregular fashion. If this process goes far enough, a point is reached at which the original phonological conditioning of the change

[7] This is how Trager (1940) and Ferguson (1972) explain the morphological sensitivity of af- Tensing in certain eastern seaboard dialects of the United States. Kiparsky has a different account of the lexicalization of the process in these dialects (I988: 403). He claims that speakers identified the tense reflex as coinciding with 'broad a'. Since the distribution of the latter is controlled by lexical rule, the tensing rule itself made the transition into the lexicon. This suggestion seems unconvincing for two reasons. Firstly, unlike the situation in New England, the full integration of the 'broad a' class into earlier stages of these vernaculars has never been adequately demonstrated. (There is positive evidence that the class was never established in Belfast, another of the dialects in which &-Tensing has undergone lexicalization. See Harris, I985 (177 ff.).) Secondly, the distribution of 'broad a' (roughly, before anterior fricatives and clusters of anterior nasal plus obstruent) by no means matches that of tense x as closely as Kiparsky implies. As Figure I shows, there is a reasonable degree of fit in Philadelphia, but not in New York City or Belfast where tense e has a much wider distribution.

5'



JOHN HARRIS

becomes so obscured that learners reanalyze the tense-lax opposition as being directly coded in underlying representations. This is the development that I assume has been partly responsible for the phonemicization of the tense-lax contrast in type-III dialects.

6.6. Extensions of the tensing pattern

Finally in this section, let us consider how the account just outlined can be extended to take in the generalization of the tensing process to historically short o and e in some dialects. The effects of tensing on these two nuclei are very similar to a-Tensing in terms of phonological conditioning, morphological conditioning and phonetic realization.

Unconditional tensing of stressed e is found in the west of Scotland and Ulster Scots areas of Ireland. A conditioned version of the process operates in Belfast where the class of tautosyllabic conditioning consonants is identical to that operating in the case of a-Tensing. (For a detailed description of e-Tensing in all of these areas, see Harris, 1985: ch. I.) The typical phonetic realisation of the tense versus lax e contrast in Belfast is long mid ingliding [ea] versus short low [e]. (The lax reflex is potentially merged with short x in certain environments.)

(I 3) Lax: (a) step, bet, fetch, wreck,... Tense: (b) ten, stem, less, left, beg, bed, hedge,...

The morphological conditioning is also identical: in polysyllabic forms, tensing applies wherever a surface heterosyllabic tensing consonant is followed by a suffix. Compare the forms in (14a) with those in (14b, c):

(I4) Lax: (a) Cheddar, tenor, lemon, felon, cellar,... Tense: (b) shredder, tenner, seller,...

(c) felling, stemming,...

As illustrated by the following sample derivation, these data submit to the same lexical analysis as that proposed for x-Tensing (cf. io):

(I5) ten tenner tenor MORPHOLOGY PHONOLOGY

tEn] tEn], or] tEnar] Stratum I

tEan] tEan] e-Tensing

Stratum 2 Affixation taEn]ar]

Other rules Output [tEan] [teanar] [twnar]

52




As it affects the o class, tensing has produced a decomposition into two main reflexes: the lax reflex is short, generally low and sometimes unround (e.g. [n] in the south of England, [a] in New York City and Belfast); the tense reflex is long, generally round, subject to height variation and sometimes accompanied by a centring off-glide (e.g. [c:] in the south of England, [va] in Belfast). The range of postvocalic consonants which condition tense reflexes of o is very similar, and in some dialects identical, to those operating in e- Tensing. Thus we find tensed o minimally before tautosyllabic voiceless fricatives (as in (i6a)) and, in some dialects, voiced non-continuants (as in (16 b)); lax o occurs before voiceless non-continuants (as in (I6 c)) as well as before otherwise tensing heterosyllabic consonants (i6 d).

(I6) Tense: (a) soft, cloth, loss,... (b) bomb, Don, long,...

rob, pod, lodge, dog,...

Lax: (c) top, pot, Scotch, lock,... (d) robin, common, honest,...

In most of the relevant dialects, the tense-o pattern shows the same morphological conditioning effects as a-Tensing. Thus, in derived forms, the tense nucleus is retained before a tensing consonant, even when the latter is not phonetically tautosyllabic with the nucleus:

(17) Tense: robber, bomber, logger,... robbing, bombing, logging,...

It would be tempting to claim that the historical tensing of o is retained in the grammars of these dialects as one expansion of a generalized rule tensing non-high short nuclei and operating at Stratum I of the lexicon. Whether or not an o sub-rule would be recoverable on the basis of phonetic output is, however, questionable for two reasons. Firstly, tensed reflexes of o have undergone merger with at least one historically long nucleus in most dialects. In Belfast and New York City, for example, the [za] reflex is merged with the isolative development of historical au (as in caught, sauce, law, hawk). This means that there is a surface contrast between lax [a] and tense [aa] in non- tensing environments (as in cot, hock, body with [a] versus caught, hawk, bawdy with [cx]). Secondly, the picture in some eastern seaboard dialects of the United States is further complicated by a split of the tense nucleus into two sub-reflexes: [zx] (as in soft, loss, song) and [ca] (as in cod, cog, Tom). (For the details, see Lass, 1976, ch. 5.) The latter reflex is merged with earlier a: (as in father, calm, drama). The [a]-[ua]-[3o] contrast is subject to a good deal of lexical selectivity in New York City. For example, while the usual reflex of o before V is [xa] (as in long, song), there are exceptions with [a] (e.g. prong, gong). These considerations may lead us to conclude that the three- way contrast has undergone phonemicization in these dialects.

53



JOHN HARRIS

Whatever the appropriate synchronic analysis, it appears that the historical development of the tensing of o and e can be accounted for in the same terms as those suggested for x in 6.5. That is, we find a progression involving rule lexicalization, followed in some dialects by lexical diffusion and ultimately by restructuring.

7. CONCLUSION

Of the two predictions regarding the role of Structure Preservation in phonological change outlined in (2), only the first appears to be supported by studies of sound change in progress. The position that fully regular phonetically gradient patterns of variation (as described in (2 a)) are matters of low-level phonetic implementation is consistent with an analysis in terms of post-lexical rules. However, as regards prediction (2b), I have presented evidence from two English cases, Dentalization in Belfast and the tensing of historically short vowels in a number of dialects, which points to the existence of non-structure-preserving rules that operate in the lexicon. In fact, the recent phonological literature contains a number of unrelated but parallel examples (see Harris, I987 for a summary and discussion). This evidence points to one of two conclusions. Either we abandon the principle of Structure Preservation in phonology; or we weaken it in such a way that it defines the unmarked case. Under the latter interpretation, any change which becomes phonologized as a lexical rule but which fails to preserve structure will increase the degree of markedness in the grammar. The reassertion of Structure Preservation would then be predicted to dictate the direction of any subsequent change. However, until the issues surrounding the status of Structure Preservation in phonological theory have been fully investigated, this last remark must remain no more than speculative.

Lexical Phonology offers a coherent framework within which the historical phonologist can track the development of sound changes as they penetrate deeper and deeper into linguistic structure. The initial stage of a sound change may take the form of an intrinsic phonetic contrast undergoing phonologization, becoming controlled by a low-level rule operating in the post-lexical stratum. Over time the original phoneticity of the change may become obscured by a number of factors. The rule may acquire lexical exceptions, or it may, as a result of analogical pressures, become implicated in morphological structure. Either of these developments involves the rule making a transition into the lexicon. Reordering prior to a rule that already applies lexically would produce the same outcome. The notion of rule lexicalization thus provides a partial account of the process of rule morphologization (as discussed by, among others, King, I969; Hooper, 1976; Dressler, 1977; and van der Hulst, I980).

Under the strongest interpretation of Structure Preservation, the lexicalization of a phonological rule would be predicted to trigger an abrupt

54




restructuring of underlying representations. That is, if structure is to be preserved in the lexicon, the novel contrast must immediately become underlyingly distinctive. However, the evidence presented in this paper points to the necessity of recognizing an 'intermediate' stage at which a new contrast enters the lexicon in the shape of a lexical rule without immediately producing a restructuring of the underlying phoneme inventory.

Labov's (I98I) resolution of the Neogrammarian controversy is to postulate two different types of change operating at different levels of the grammar. From the perspective of Lexical Phonology, this position can be refined by reinterpreting the distinction as reflecting different stages in the ageing process of sound change. In other words, rather than positing two typologically distinct sorts of change, we can envisage a continuous process whereby individual changes can percolate deeper and deeper into the linguistic system. The lexicalization of a phonological rule thus represents a potential intermediate stage between the inception of a change as a post- lexical rule and its eventual demise when and if the contrast comes to be phonemicized. Author's address: Department of Phonetics and Linguistics,

University College, Gower Street, London WCiE 6BT

REFERENCES

Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (i987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LIn i8. '-44.

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (I968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Denning, K. M., Inkelas, S., McNair-Knox, F. C. & Rickford, J. R. (eds) (1987). Variation in

language - NWA V-XV at Stanford: proceedings of the I5th annual conference on new ways of analyzing variation. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.

Dressler, W. U. (I977). Morphologization of phonological processes. In Juilland, A. (ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg II. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 313-37.

Fallows, D. (I98I). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. JL 17. 309-17.

Ferguson, C. A. (1972). 'Short a' in Philadelphia English. In Smith, M. E. (ed.), Studies in linguistics in honor of George L. Trager. The Hague: Mouton. 259-74.

Fudge, E. (1977). Long and short [X] in one southern British speaker's English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 7. 55-65.

Gimson, A. C. (I962). An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Arnold. Gregg, R. J. (I964). Scotch-Irish urban speech in Ulster. In Adams, G. B. (ed.), Ulster dialects:

an introductory symposium. Cultra, Co. Down: Ulster Folk Museum. i63-92. Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (I985). Segmental phonology of modern English. LIn I6.

57-I i6. Harris, J. (1985). Phonological variation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Harris, J. (I986). Phonetic constraints on sociolinguistic variation. Sheffield Working Papers in

Language and Linguistics 3. I20-43. Harris, J. (1987). Non-structure-preserving rules in Lexical Phonology: southeastern Bantu

harmony. Lingua 73. 255-92.

55



JOHN HARRIS

Ha-rris, J. (in press). Derived phonological contrasts. To appear in Ramsaran, S. (ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: a commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Ginson. London: Croom Helm.

Hooper, J. B. (I978). An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.

Kaisse, E. M. & Shaw, P. A. (I985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 1-30.

King, R. D. (I969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kiparsky, P. (I982). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds), The structure of phonological representations, vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 13I-76.

Kiparsky, P. (I985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85-I 38.

Kiparsky, P. (I988). Phonological change. In Newmeyer, F. W. (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, vol. I. Linguistic theory: foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 363-415.

Labov, W. (I98I). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Lg 57. 267-308. Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress.

Philadelphia: US Regional Survey. Lass, R. (I976). English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Laycock, D. C. (i966). Long 'short' vowels in Australian English. MPhon 126. 22-3. Milroy, J. (I980). Lexical alternation and the history of English: evidence from an urban

vernacular. In Traugott, E. C., La Brum, R., & Shepherd S. (eds), Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Stanford, March 1979. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 355-62.

Milroy, L., Milroy, J., Harris, J., Gunn, B., Pitts, A. & Policansky, L. (I983). Sociolinguistic variation and linguistic change in Belfast. Report to the UK Economic and Social Research Council. Grant no. HR5777.

Mohanan, K. P. (I986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Mohanan, K. P. & Mohanan, T. (I984). Lexical Phonology and the consonant system in

Malayalam. LIn 15. 575-602. Payne, A. C. (i980). Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-

state children. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. I43-78.

Pulleyblank, D. (I986). Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Trager, G. L. (I930). The pronunciation of 'short a' in American Standard English. American

Speech 5. 396-400. Trager, G. L. (I940). One phonemic entity becomes two: the case of 'short a'. American Speech

15. 255-8. Trudgill, P. (i974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. van der Hulst, H. (I980). Towards a lexical theory of phonological change. In Zonneveld, W.

& Weerman, F. (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands I977-1979. Dordrecht: Foris. 170-82. Wang, W. S-Y. (ed.) (I977). The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague: Mouton.

56



3uhvv 6wdeoh 85

Documents