Linguistic Society of America

Word Boundaries and Sandhi Rules in Natural Generative Phonology Author(s): Mary L. Clayton Reviewed work(s): Source: Language, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), pp. 571-590 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: . Accessed: 10/09/2012 04:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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


Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.


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

Sandhi rules, or rules for putting together linguistic formatives, have been a part of linguistic descriptions since the time of the Indian grammarians, from whom we get the term. One usually speaks of internal sandhi, the rules or processes by which inflectional and derivational endings are attached to roots or stems, and external sandhi, the rules or processes linking words within phrases and linking the morphemes of compounds. Such concepts have not played a large role in recent phonological theory because transformational generative phonology took as one of its central assumptions the unity of all processes involved in the distribution of sounds and their abstractions, and thus went to some lengths to obliterate the differences among various types of phonological alternations: those conditioned by morphological factors, by phonetic environment, and by various boundaries. However, Natural Generative Phonology (NGP), by limiting phonological rules to those which meet the true generalization condition-and which, in addition, are conditioned solely by phonetic segments and phonological boundaries-has forced the re-emergence of diverse types of generalizations involving phonological segments. Among these, sandhi rules, in which NGP includes all and only those rules which involve a word boundary,' have found only a tentative foothold. They
* I would like to thank R. Joe Campbell and Rafael Nuniez-Cedeno for discussing various aspects of this paper with me, and especially Philip D. Rasico for consultations on the Catalan examples. 'This definition is at the same time more specific than the traditional meaning, in that it is limited to one type of boundary, and more general, in that it has been applied not only to those rules whose structural descriptions include both a word boundary and some segment(s) across the boundary, but also to those which are conditioned entirely by elements within one word, including the boundary. 571



have been little discussed, perhaps in part because the theory does not really allow for them. This fact is all the more reason to examinethem to see whether such rules can indeed be considered a separate type, and what implications their existence might have for the theory. In the following discussion, ?1 outlines the currentposition of synchronic sandhi rules in NGP, and raises the questions to be treated in the remainder of the paper. In ?2, I argue, througha comparisonwith two other rule types, that sandhi rules do not constitute a separate class or component; in ?3, I consider furtherargumentsfor word boundariesin phonology. Througha critical comparisonwith structuralist positions, ?4 examines the logically possible alternatives, and shows that NGP is currentlynot able to accept any of them. In ?5, I provide a summaryand some concludingremarks.
1. SANDHI IN NGP. As outlined by Vennemann (1972a,b,c, 1974) RULES

and elaborated by Hooper (especially 1976), NGP makes two closely related claims concerningsandhi rules. These are (a) that P-rulesdo not refer to word boundaries (Hooper, 14); and (b) that sandhi rules constitute a type 'intermediate between P-rules and MP-rules'(17). Accordingto Vennemann,'there is a distinctionbetween phonologicalrules (allophonicand phonemicrules) on the one hand and morphophonemic,morphological,and sandhi rules on the other' (1972b: 111).Sandhirules 'are not phoneticallymotivatablerules ... since make reference to the word boundary,i.e. to a non-phoneticpropertyof they a string, [they] are a special class of morphophonemic rules, ratherthan phorules I will these claims by examining (1972a:18). nological proper' question the characteristicsof sandhirules and their relationshipto rules of other types. Hooper (1976:14)lists five types of rules recognizedby NGP.2They may be briefly defined as follows: PHONETICALLY CONDITIONED RULES (P-RULES) describe alternations which occur in environmentswhich can be specified in terms of phonologicalfeatures and phonological boundaries, i.e. syllable boundary and pause. P-rules may affect either redundantor contrastive features. They must be automatic or conditionat the surface i.e., they must meet the truegeneralization transparent; level (Hooper, 14). ical features in environmentsconditionedby morphosyntacticor lexical information.They may referto morphologicalor syntactic categoriesor to arbitrary lexical categories (15).
VIA-RULES note the relationship between derivationally related words. InMORPHOPHONEMIC RULES describe the distribution of phonolog(MP-RULES)

dividual lexical items must be marked as related by a certain via-rule (17). I will not be concerned with rules of this type, and will only note here that the presence or absence of a given via-rule, or of the lexical markingof a given pair of forms as being related, has no empiricalconsequences for the output of the grammar which contains or fails to containthe rule and/orlexical marker.
2 I would like to say at the outset that this paperis directedprimarily at Hooper(e.g. 1976),not because of any lack of respect, but because hers is the most clearly articulatedand completely formulatedexposition of the theory of NGP-and thereforethe most accessible for refinement, or if necessary, refutation.



SYLLABIFICATION RULES assign syllable boundaries to phonological strings,

and may re-apply in the course of a derivation(18). Hooper proposes to state these rules as positive conditions on syllable boundariesand segments (194).
SPELL-OUT RULESmerely give phonological form to abstract MORPHOLOGICAL RULES specify the order of morphological morphemes; and WORD-FORMATION

elements within the word (18). AlthoughHooper does not list sandhirules as a separatetype, she discusses them briefly after outliningthe function of phoneticallyconditionedrules, MPrules, and via-rules:
'If a rulecontainsa wordboundary it will be considered but no othernon-phonetic information, a sandhi rule. Sandhi rules constitute a class that is intermediatebetween P-rules and MPrules. On the one hand, the word boundaryfunctioningin a sandhirule must be considered a syntacticboundarybecause it is determined by the syntax and semanticsand not arbitrarily by the phonology.On the other hand, the word boundaryresemblesa phonologicalboundary because it always has the potentialto coincide with a syllable boundary-the beginningsand ends of words may also be the beginningsand ends of syllables, respectively. Furthermore, where a word begins and ends, there also an utterancemay beginand end. A word boundary is potentially a pause boundary. This intimate connection between word boundariesand phonologicalboundariesmay explain why sandhirules often behave like P-rules:They may be productiveand regularand, furthermore, unsuppressable.'(17-18)

This quotation leads us to question why sandhi rules should constitute a class intermediatebetween P-rules and MP-rules. Are they different from P-rules, aside from the fact that they involve the presence of a so-called non-phonological boundary?If not, then the difference is merely one of definition;and the claim that P-rules may not be conditionedby non-phonological boundaries is vacuous, since it is true by definition.

from (other) P-rules, and whether they share some of the characteristicsof MP-rules, let us compare relevant aspects of sandhi rules, P-rules, and MPrules-namely, the characteristicswhich determinephonetic conditioning,including the function of the features involved in the rules. These aspects and their definitions are as follows: this has a more limited meaning than 'pro(1) Automatic/non-automatic: ductive' did for some proponents of transformational generative phonology. For NGP, not only must an automatic rule apply every time its structural description is met, but it must also meet the True GeneralizationCondition (TGC)at the surface level (i.e., it must make a true claim about the distribution of sounds). (2) Functional role of features involved in the rule:3 ALLOPHONICONLY: the featuresaffectedby the rule are non-contrastive.
ALLOPHONIC and NEUTRALIZING: The features affected are contrastive

AND MP-RULES. To determine whether sandhi rules are different in some way

for some of the segments involved, non-contrastivefor others.
PHONEMIC:The features affected by the rule are contrastive for all

segments involved.
3 The rule may change features or-in an archisegmentversion of the theory-may add them.



In the following paragraphs,we will consider examples of rules of all three types,4 in order to determinewhat characteristicssandhirules share with each of the other types.
RULES. Let us begin by considering MP-rules2.1. MORPHOPHONEMIC

which, because of the presence of morphosyntacticor lexical conditioning,are of necessity non-automatic.5It should be noted that the fact that these rules involve non-phoneticconditioningalso results in their effecting only phonemic changes: a rule could not use morphologicalconditioningto state the distribution of non-contrastive segments, since the segments are contrastive by virtue of their dependence upon morphologicalconditioning. terit of 3rd conjugationverbs shows a stem vowel alternationwhich does not occur in the other two conjugations.The stem vowel e is raised to i in the 3rd personforms of -ir (3rdconjugation)verbs only. In -er (2ndconjugation)verbs, the stem vowel e may occur throughout;see Table 1.

A MORPHOPHONEMIC RULE(non-automatic, phonemic). In Spanish, the pre-

medir medi midi6

'to measure' 'I measured' 'he measured'

meter meti meti6 TABLE1.

'to put in' 'I put in' 'he put in'

stem AND by the membershipof the verb in the 3rd conjugation.Regardless of whether we accept a version of NGP with a lexicon of morphemesor one with a lexicon of full words and paradigms,6 the rule still has the same characteristics: it is phonemic, since it describes the distributionof contrastive segments, and it is non-automatic,since it does not state a true phonological generalizationat the surface level. can also be non-automatic, and thereby phonemic. Syntactic gemination in Italian(Rohlfs 1949:290-93)providesexamplesof this phenomenon.In Tuscan, word-initialconsonants are geminated when preceded by certain morphemes which are lexically markedto cause gemination.The origin of this rule was a sound change which assimilateda consonantto a followingconsonant, e.g. La.
SANDHI RULES (non-automatic, phonemic). Rules involving word boundaries

The alternation med - mid is conditioned by the presence of the e in the

advenire > It. avvenire 'to happen'; La. ad Venetiam > It. a Vvenezia 'to
4 Since we are not

Venice'. Since the phonological conditioningfactor is no longer present (cf.
5 It should be remembered that AUTOMATIC in generative phonology means 'applying every time the structural description is met, regardless of the restrictions imposed by the structural description

discussingformalissues, no attempthas been made to state rules formally.

acts as a redundancystatementdescribingthe distribution of phonemesin a lexicon composedof full words and paradigms.

means 'having no surface exceptions'. 6 In the former case, the rule which accounts for this alternation acts upon a lexical formative when this is combined with other formatives in such a way as to trigger the rule; in the latter, it

andregardless of the possibleeffects of laterrulesuponthe output';butin NGPthe termspecifically



La. tres > It. tre 'three'; La. tres caprae > It. tre ccapre 'three goats'), the

class of morphemes triggeringgemination is arbitraryand must be lexically marked. Indeed, it is now arbitraryeven from a historicalpoint of view, since different dialects recognize different sets of morphemes as causing gemination-and it is no longer the case that these must have had final consonants in Latin, e.g. popularTuscan tu ccanti < La. tu cantds 'you sing'. Since this rule involves lexical conditioning, there is reason to consider it an MP-rule independentlyof the presence of the word boundary, and no reason to treat it differently from other MP-rules because of the word boundary. This rule, like the preceding one, is a morphophonemicrule, non-automaticand phonemic. We may or may not choose to describe rules of this type as 'sandhi rules' to indicate that they contain a word boundary;but unless they can be shown to behave differentlyfrom other MP-rules, there is no justification for singling them out.
2.2. PHONETICALLY CONDITIONED RULES.I turn next to P-rules, which are

always automatic in NGP. These may involve non-contrastive or partially contrastive classes of segments-and, under certain conditions, fully contrastive classes of segments.
AN ALLOPHONIC RULE(automatic, allophonic). In standard Latin American

Spanish, /1/is alveolar except in the environmentbefore a following postdental or palatal consonant,7 where it assimilates to the point of articulationof that consonant; thus /ala/ [ala] 'wing', but /alta/ [alta] 'tall' ( This assimilation applies both within words and across word boundarieswithin phrases: /el ala/ [elala] 'the wing', but /el teco/ [elteco] 'the roof. The rule is automatic and allophonic. and involve only allophonic features. For example, a number of dialects of Spanish, both in Spain and in Latin America, velarize phrase-finaland wordfinal /n/.8 The Leonese dialect of San Cipriande Sanabriahas the following (Kriger 1923:76):[niij inu nij outru] (ni uno ni otro) 'neither one nor the other';9 [kantabe]j (cantaban) 'they were singing'; [sarteO](sarten) 'skillet' (cf. pl. [sartenes], in which the In/ is alveolar). Another sandhirule which introducesa non-contrastivevariantis the voicing
Latin AmericanSpanish in this example to avoid questions involvingthe phonologicalidentity of the I assimilatingto a following palatalin those dialects which have a palatal lateralphoneme. 8 The conditioningenvironmentsin the followingword vary from one dialect to another,and in manydialectsthe process is moreor less optionalor stylisticallygoverned.In some cases, complete velar occlusion may not take place; but it is the distribution of the segment ratherthan its exact phonetic descriptionwhich concerns us here. There are dialects in which nasal deletion accompanied by nasalizationof the precedingvowel may be considereda separateprocess from nasal velarization.It should be noted that there are also dialects in which velarizationis more general, withinwords (in variousphoneticcontexts) as well as at wordboundaries. applyingsyllable-finally We are not concerned with such dialects here, since the rule in such cases is not a sandhi rule. 9 ni > [nii] by analogy to La. n6n (> standardSp. no), which retains the final nasal in this dialect (Kriiger,76).
7 I use standard

SANDHI RULES (automatic, allophonic). Sandhi rules can also be automatic



of word-final/s/ before vowels in the Spanishof a large area of the Ecuadorian highlands, including Quito (Toscano Mateus 1953:79, 1964:118; Canfield 1962:81;Robinson 1979). Thus standard[losombres]los hombres 'the men' is pronounced[lozombres]in this dialect. In partsof the area, /s/ at prefix boundary is also voiced when intervocalic.'0 As in the precedingexample, the rule is automatic,being conditionedonly by the segmentin questionand its position in the word, and allophonic, since there is no /z/ phoneme.
ANDNEUTRALIZING RULES. 2.3. ALLOPHONIC The P-rule and sandhi rules dis-

cussed above involve only non-contrastivefeatures. Below, we will see that both P-rules and sandhi rules may involve partiallycontrastive classes of segments, i.e. classes in which some alternations are allophonic while others neutralizephonemic distinctions. A P-RULE as(automatic,allophonic, and neutralizing).Point-of-articulation similationof nasals in Spanish is an example. In standardSpanish (both Castilian and Latin American), syllable-finalnasals assimilate their point of articulation to a following consonant. There are as many allophones of/n/ as there are consonantalpoints of articulation in the dialect-all of them non-contrastive except for bilabial [m], which is also an allophone of the phoneme /m/. " The rule applies both within words and across word boundarieswithinphrases; see Table 2.
[inebitable] [imposible] [iggrato] [unabe] [umpero] [ugaito] inevitable imposible ingrato un ave un perro un gato TABLE 2. 'inevitable' 'impossible' 'ungrateful' 'a bird' 'a dog' 'a cat'

The fact that the rule results in the change of/n/ to [m], which is an allophone of a separatephoneme/m/, means that it is neutralizing for these two phonemes. Thus it is characterized and neutralizing. by beingautomatic,and both allophonic
A SANDHI RULE(automatic, allophonic, and neutralizing). Standard Catalan,

though not all dialects of the language, has a sandhi rule which voices wordfinal stridents before words beginningwith a vowel. The stridentphonemes in Catalan consist of contrastively voiced and voiceless pairs of sibilants (represented by /s/ and /z/ in the examples) and the phoneme /f/, which has no voiced counterpart.'2Thus contrast between voiced and voiceless sibilants is neutralizedin word-finalposition before vowels. In the case of/f/, which voices to [v] in the same environment, the alternationis allophonic ratherthan neu'o It is not unusual for prefix boundaries to be treated like word boundaries in Spanish phonology. 1 Within words, of course, one may use an archisegment for syllable-final N, which in this case is an archiphoneme because of the phonemic status of /m/. 2 I will not consider the question of the phonemic status of the Catalan affricates [ts dz ts d7]. For a discussion of this issue, see Roca Pons (1971:108-10).



tralizing,since modern standardCatalanhas no /v/ phoneme.'3Thus this rule, like the P-rule above, is automatic, and both allophonicand neutralizing.The productivityand the phonologicalnatureof this word-finalprocess are affirmed by the fact that, when later developments expose formerly intervocalic /s/'s to word-finalposition, they too begin to take partin the voicing before vowels. The data are shown in Table 3.
[r6sa] [roza] [bazana] [baspurta] [bazduna] [bavd9azogradabbla] rossa rosa vas anar vas portar vas donar baf desagradable TABLE 3. 'blonde' 'rose' 'you went' 'you carried' 'you gave' 'disagreeable odor'

2.4. PHONEMICRULES.Let us look next at processes which are automatic

and which, in addition, effect only phonemic changes. We will see that the position of such rules in NGP, whether or not they involve word boundaries, is somewhat ambiguous,because (transparent) phonologicalgeneralizationsas well as morphologicalgeneralizationsmay be drawn.'4 For purposes of the present topic, however, it is sufficient to note that the questions involved in rules of this type apply equally to those rules which contain word boundaries and those which do not. A P-RULE (automaticand phonemic).One stage of the well-knownprocess of rhotacism in Latin results in a P-rule which is phonemic and not allophonic. This process changed intervocalic /s/ (probably via a [z] allophone) into [r], which thereby became a part of the /r/ phoneme in non-alternating cases such as *koisa > cura 'carefulness' (Buck 1933:132-3). New intervocalic Is/ soon developed from other sources, making the s->r rule opaque and relegatingit to the status of an MP-rule, accounting for alternationsat morphemebound5

'to be'; ama-re 'to love'. During the time before the re-emergenceof intervocalic Is], rhotacism represented a surface true generalization.(I.e., there were no surface representations of the form VsV. The only /s/ phonemes occurringin this environment were in alternatingmorphemes, and rhotacism changed them to [r].) It has been suggested (Klausenburger1979, Clayton 1980) that phonological generalizations of this type are represented in the grammarby both phonological and morphologicalgeneralizations.Morphologization then consists of the loss of the phonological generalization-in this case, when it is made opaque by the appearance of the new intervocalic [s]-leaving the morphological(morNote also that Catalan stridents assimilate in voicing to a following consonant, just as in Spanish, thus bringing about neutralization of sibilants in all syllable-final positions. (See Badia Margarit 1962:77-98 for a description of these sounds and alternations.) 14 This topic is dealt with more fully in Klausenburger 1979, Clayton 1980. 5 I am not concerned here with the question of whether the MP-rule is inverted r-os (cf. Vennemann 1972c).

Examples of alternations are flos (nom.), flor-is (gen.) 'flower'; es-se



phophonemic) generalization on its own. Klausenburgercalls the combined phonological and morphological generalizations 'semi-morphologized';and is dominant. generalization certainlyit can be arguedthat the morphophonemic However, at the semi-morphologized stage, the phonologicalgeneralizationis still transparent-though it may not be possible to determinewhether native speakers at this stage are utilizingone or both generalizations. A SANDHI RULE (automaticand phonemic). In standardCatalan, word-final stops are devoiced before a vowel and in phrase-finalposition. Before a following consonant, they assimilate to the consonant in voicing, just as they do withinwords. In syllable-initial position, Catalanhas both voiced and voiceless stops, makingthis process one of phonemic neutralization;see Table 4.
[p3t] pot 'he can'

[pudt.m] [p3tpurta] [podduni] [p3tanfi]

podem pot portar pot donar pot anar

'we can' 'he can carry' 'he can give' 'he can go'

Here, as in the preceding example, both a phonologicalgeneralizationand morphophonemicgeneralizationsare statable. The potentially ambiguousposition of such rules in NGP is thus independentof the presence or absence of word boundaries.
The characteristics of P-rules, MP-rules, and sandhi rules 2.5. SUMMARY.

discussed above are summarizedin Table 5.

non-automatic/ automatic allophonic allophonicand neutralizing phonemic

/ (?)

v/ /

/ /


We have seen that phonetically conditioned rules have the same characterother than istics as sandhirules withoutmorphosyntacticor lexical information the word boundary, regardingthe possible function of the features involved in them; furthermore,the presence of the word boundarydoes not correlate with any other characteristicwhich might set phoneticallyconditioned sandhi rules apart from ordinaryP-rules.16 Likewise, MP-ruleshave the same characteristics as sandhi rules which DOcontain non-phonetic informationother than the word boundary. There is no reason not to consider this last type as
16To call a sandhi rule a P-rule of is, course, to assert the conclusionof this paper. Yet it will be necessary to use the term 'phoneticallyconditioned'to refer to productivesandhi processes as opposed to non-productiveones. I will occasionally call the former '(otherwise)phonetically conditioned',to remindthe readerthat I am not simply beggingthe question.



MP-rules, and no reason to consider them any differentfrom other MP-rules. Furthermore,since all generalizationsinvolving features which are non-contrastive for some segments involved MUST be automatic(by definition-since, if they were non-automatic,these features would therebybecome contrastive), therefore phonetically conditioned sandhi rules are automatic. The fact that they share this most basic feature with (other) P-rules, while differingfrom MP-rulesin all the characteristicswe have examined, suggeststhatphonetically conditioned sandhi rules are simply P-rules which happen to contain word boundaries. To take the current position of NGP-i.e. to define 'automatic' in such a way that all sandhi rules are non-automaticsimply by virtue of the presence of the word boundary-vitiates any claim we might want to make about the domain or conditioningfactors of phonologicalgeneralizationsthat meet the TGC. Thus we have seen no evidence yet that sandhirules of either type constitute a type of rule 'intermediatebetween P-rules and MP-rules'. It appears that if there is any reason for distinguishingphonological generalizationswhich include word boundariesfrom those which do not, it lies in certainunquestioned assumptionsof NGP concerning the definitions of 'automatic'and 'P-rule'.
3. OTHER ARGUMENTS for word boundaries in P-rules include the following.

currentlysupportedby NGP raises some questions concerningits organization of the grammar.It leaves unclear exactly what part the component of sandhi rules plays in the grammar,since its function separate from that of the phonological component is not defined. What are the units in which it deals? How do we define its level? This component is said to be intermediatebetween Prules and MP-rules. We might assume this to mean that it deals with units which are not identical with those that serve as input to the P-rules;but such appears not to be the case. The only difference between the two components is that all the rules in this intermediategroupare partiallyconditionedby word boundaries, while none of the P-rules are so conditioned. In favor of having two sets of rules, we seem to have only the argumentthat NGP doesn't believe in word boundariesin P-rules. Against this separate group of rules, however, the following argumentsconcerningthe structureof the grammar may be made: 3.11. One might question whether some characteristicof rule interaction, i.e. some type of intrinsic or extrinsic ordering,'7might distinguish between sandhi rules and (other) P-rules. One reason for separatecomponents in NGP is that the output of one serves as the input of another, and this introducesa kind of ordering which is assumed to be the only legitimate one, other than random sequential order.'8 For sandhi rules, however, no such ordering is
that the only orderpermittedis randomsequentialand equates 'intrinsic'with this: 'Rules are intrinsically orderedif the only factor involvedin determining when and where the rules apply is the information to several attemptsat given in the SD' (Hooper 1976:54).Referring replacinglanguageparticular orderingwith universals,she says (75): 'Extrinsicruleorderwill still be allowed, but it will be largelypredictedon universalprinciples.' 18On (sub)componentordering,see Brasington1976,Walsh 1977,Vennemann1974:351.
17NGP assumes



required.Since rules of both types are phonetic true generalizations,there can be no orderingamong them or between the two sets. 3.12. Since all these rules are true generalizations,they could just as well be 'ordered'or organizedin the opposite direction:P-rulesfollowing MP-rules and precedingsandhirules. But this configuration would not express the vague of sandhi rules MP-rules. Now if the organizationof to purportedrelationship the grammarwith respect to these two groups of rules cannot be established on sounder grounds than a non-functionalrelationshipassumed to exist between sandhi rules and MP-rules,there are indeed no groundsfor having two separaterule types. 3.13. Currenttheories, unlike structuralism have mech(cf. Pike 1947a:290), anisms for handlingvariationsin style and tempo;'9and as we will see (?3.4), these mechanisms must be availablefor rules which involve word boundaries as well as for those that do not. This fact provides yet another reason for maintainingthe unity of all rules which involve phonetic true generalizations.

Since word boundariesnot infrequentlycoincide with syllable boundaries(at as pause in any case, and in some languagesfrequentlywhen phrase-internal we consider the that the in sandhi rules word well), might boundary possibility mightbe replacedby a syllable boundary.For a numberof cases, this approach will indeed correctly define the boundariesat which the rules apply. These, of course, are the cases in which the particularsyllabic configurationat the word boundary does not occur within a word, e.g. the allophonic voicing of word-finals in EcuadorianSpanish (?2.2). If a syllable boundaryis inserted at word boundaries,syllable-finals before a vowel will occur only word-finally, since all other intervocalics's will be syllable-initial.Thus a rule which voices syllable-final intervocalic s's will voice all and only the correct segments. Examples are shown in Table 6.

los hombres la sombra la losa los dedos desde

'the men' 'the shadow' 'the slab' 'the fingers' 'since'

/los$6m$bres/ /la$s6m$bra/ /la$16$sa/


[loz$6m$bres] [lo$s6m$bres] [la$s6m$bra] [la$16$sa] [loz$de$dos] [dez$de]

Furthermore,since both standardSpanish and Quito Spanish have a rule which assimilates the voicing of a syllable-finalobstruent to the voicing of a followingconsonant, we could not only collapse the final s-voicing rule in Quito Spanish with the standardrule, but we could achieve a consequent simplification of the rule, since the environmentwould be 'syllable-finallybefore a voiced segment'. But wait. Does this mean that the difference between [lozombres] and [la19 Thoughthese are not withoutproblems;see Clayton 1979.



sombra] is the syllable boundary: [loz$om$] ... but [la$som$] ...?20 There is

little likelihood of finding any phonetic correlate for the proposed distinction in syllable division-since Spanish is for the most part a languagewhich does not regardthe word boundaryin syllabification,2'and the phonetic syllable is an elusive entity in any case; thus the proposed analysis would amount to giving the syllable boundary a diacritic function-which is anathema in the linguisticmodel underdiscussion. One mighttry to save the analysis by claiming that the voicing assimilationrule applies before a rule which resyllabifies the phonetic string. We would then be dealing not with a phonetic syllable as input, but ratherwith a phonemic syllable,22and the phonetic syllable would result from the resyllabification.Now althoughthe phonetic syllable is subject to empiricalverification, the use of the phonemic syllable has only to be consistent with the model of phonology in which it is being employed. However, this requirementis not met in the analysis under discussion, since the two central requirements of NGP are violated-namely, the TGC and the NoOrderingCondition. The former condition is not met because the voicing assimilationrule cannot represent a true generalizationat the surface level if it voices syllable-finals before a vowel: at the surface level, this s is not syllablefinal.23The No-OrderingCondition is violated because the analysis involves a counter-bleedingorderingof the rule of resyllabificationwith respect to the rule of voicing assimilation,thus resultingin disallowed extrinsic orderingand opacity. Even if the use of syllable boundariesat word boundarieswere acceptable for cases of the type exemplified above, it would not work in cases where the
Robinson(141-2) reportsthat native speakers,when questionedaboutthe differencebetween word-final/s/ before a vowel and word-initial/s/, report that there is 'a pause' following the
(supposedly) syllable-final /s/ at word end, even though no such pause can be heard in their speech.

On the basis of this interesting he proposes testimonyto the psychologicalrealityof SOME boundary, that the process is to be interpretedas voicing of vowels syllable-finally 'unless followed in close juncture by a voiceless consonant or by terminalintonation'.It is interestingto note, however, that Salazar (1889:212)described the voicing as follows: 'Asf en vez de las ufias, los hombres, decimos por aci, en mal castellano, la zufias, lo zombres'(emphasisand spacingare his). 21 This is not to say that Spanish NEVER syllabifies at word boundaries; however, it is wellknown for its tendency to ignore them. 22 Vennemann (1972a:39-40)sets aside the possibilityof an abstractsyllable; but at the same time he claims that the syllable 'can be defined in phonetic terms at all levels in an intuitively correct way with the use of largely universalsyllabificationrules' which apply after each step in a derivation.Althoughhis proposalmay not result in the 'abstract'syllable which he criticizes, he still has a phonemicsyllable-in the sense that the syllablesof the underlying level pass through derivationswhich may change their configuration to result in the syllables of the surfacelevel. 23 We see from this example that the concept of the phonemicsyllable (or the resyllabification of 'phonetic' syllables) raises some generalproblemsfor NGP, in that it permitsviolationsof the TGC. Althoughresyllabification is compatiblewith the modelemployedin both Vennemann1972a and Hooper 1972,it appearsthat the concept of resyllabification may not have been reconsidered in light of the limitationswhich NGP places on grammars.(Accordingto Hooper 1976:193,'the S[yllable]S[tructure] C[ondition]applies at the level of wordformationto organizethe stringinto syllables. It may then re-applyif the insertionof a $ or a segmentbecomes necessaryin the course of a derivation.')It will be necessary to considerin some detail whetherthe TGCand the concept of resyllabification are compatible-and if not, which of the two needs revision.



same syllabic configurationis found both withinwords and across word boundaries. An illustrationcan be taken from those dialects of Spanish in which /n/ is velarized (in some dialects optionally) at word boundaries, but not within words (cf. ?2.2). At word boundarybefore a following vowel, the situationis parallel to the above-mentioned s-voicing in Quito. But where a consonant follows, the same configurationn$C obtains both within words and at word boundaries; thus no rule(s) can simultaneously provide for both outcomes, even though there is no problemof resyllabification.Any rule which correctly assimilation across syllableboundaries,e.g. describesnasalpoint-of-articulation wouldincorrectlyassimilate/un$#pe$ro/-> in /iN$po$si$ble/-> [im$po$si$ble], [um$#pe$fo]; and any rule which correctly velarizedthe /n/ of /un$#pe$ro/-> nasalin /iN$po$si$ble/. [uj$#pe$ro] wouldincorrectlyvelarizethe syllable-final Thus it is clear that word boundary is distinct from syllable boundary and cannot be replaced by it, even though the two boundariesmay often coincide.

BOUNDARY. It should be noted that boundarieshave two separatefunctions in
linguistic descriptions. One is to delimit the particular linguistic unit which is bounded; but this function has been implicitly denied by NGP. The other is

to identify the linguistic unit associated with the boundary;this is the usual function of morphemeboundariesin MP-rules(and in P-rules in transformational generative grammar).One might say that the conditioningfactor is not the boundaryitself, but ratherthe accompanyinglabeledbracket.To distinguish the two functions, consider whether rules exist which are conditionedby the presence of ANY morpheme boundary without regard to the content of the morpheme.24Indeed, rules have been written which appear to do just this, such as one of J. Harris' rules for Spanish (1969:75-7): b -- 0 / i + This rule appears to be 'general'; i.e., it will delete morpheme-initialb in ANY morphemewhen preceded by i. But the function of this rule is simply to permit one underlyingrepresentation,/-ba/, for the imperfect of all Spanish verbs, despite the fact that there are two types of surface representations; see Table 7.

/kantaba/ /komeba/ > /komiba/ /bibiba/

[kantaba] [komia] [bibia]

'he was singing' 'he was eating' 'he was living'

The rule may be stated in its apparentlygeneral form because no other morpheme in Spanish happens both to begin with b and to be potentially precedable by i. However, the fact remains that, in spirit, it is the LABEL
24 Trubetzkoy (1969:274) suggests that some phonological processes are conditioned by morpheme boundaries, and certainly we would do well not to reject the possibility out of hand. From my point of view, the question is whether these boundaries are phonologically different from WORD boundaries for the languages under consideration. I will not consider this very interesting question here, though it certainly warrants attention.



(imperfect)which conditions the deletion, not simplythe boundary.We should note that word boundariesdo not seem to have the identifyingfunction in rules that morpheme boundaries have; rather, they serve a delimitative function. This suggests that it is misguidedto treat morphemeboundaries(in their idenenvironments tifying function) and word boundariesas equally inappropriate for automatic or phonetically conditionedprocesses.
ANDSOUND CHANGE. RULES 3.4. SANDHI Linguistic change provides a further

argumentfor the similarityof phonetically conditioned sandhi rules to other phoneticallyconditionedrules, in that the formermay have life histories which are no differentfromthose of the latter.The typicallife historyof a phonetically conditioned rule might go as follows: a sound change emerges as variation between the 'original'segment and some modified segment. Along with whatever variation between the old and the new is conditioned by style or social factors, we may see that some of the conditioningphoneticenvironmentsadmit the new segment more readily than others; thus the phonetic environmentfor the sound change will vary, and may generalize or retreatby the time the new phonetic generalizationis fully established. Duringthe period of variation,the likelihood that the new segment will occur may also acquire lexical or grammatical correlates, so that the incipient rule is immediately morphologized without ever achieving stability as a phoneticallyconditionedrule. If a stable phoneticallyconditionedrule does emerge, this rule may later become opaque, and morphologicallyor lexically conditioned;or it may be lost, if all items to which it applied are restructured. Thus, barringearly morphologizationor relexicalization,the usual path will be: variablerule, (automatic)phonetically conditioned rule, morphophonemicrule. It is not possible to trace this complete sequence with any single sandhi rule available to me; however, the evidence from rule development and rule variation suggests that the pattern of developmentfor P-rules can also be seen in sandhi rules. That is, sandhirules may show variability,as do (other) incipient phonetically conditioned rules, and may develop by expanding their set of environments of application. They may, like other P-rules, be beyond the conscious control of the speaker; and they may 'die', as do other P-rules, throughmorphologizationor relexicalization. Variabilityof the type which may be seen in incipient phonetically conditioned rules-both optionalityof applicationand variabilityof environmentmay be seen in the word-finalnasal velarizationprocess in numerousdialects of Spanish. According to Kruger (75-6),25 the dialect of San Ciprian shows velarizationoptionally in absolute-finalposition, as well as less frequently in word-finalposition before a vowel or a dental consonant (his examples show the environments before n I s and vowels). A count of velar nasals in his transcribed texts bears out his generalizations concerning the relative freAmong the numerous dialect studies which report velarization in various environments, I have chosen Kruger's study because the process in this dialect (in 1921-22) was at a fairly early stage of development, at which point the changing nature of the process is more readily apparent; and because Kruger provides accessible (though limited) data in the form of phonetically transcribed texts.



quency of the velar nasal in these environments.The preponderanceof velarizations is in absolute-finalposition; within the phrase, a small but substantial number of cases occur before vowels and dental (perhaps more accurately, apical) consonants. In addition, and unmentionedby Kriiger,a few examples occur before p b, and a somewhat largerpercentagebefore m.26 These data suggest a developing sound change, apparently moving in its domain of applicationfrom prepausalto word-final-and increasingits set of phonetic environmentsat word boundary,even while establishingitself in the phrase-internalword-final environment. The movement from prepausal to word-finalposition does not have the characterof a changefrom a phonetically conditioned rule to a morphophonemicrule. There is no hint of opacity or restrictionof environmentsto particularclasses of words such as usually accompanies morphologization.On the contrary, the process appears to be extending itself along phonetically identifiablelines, as one would expect a new P-rule to do. In other words, the behavior of this developing rule is entirely in keeping with the behavior of new P-rules, and there seems to be no reason to assign it to some other rule category simply because it is conditionedby a word boundary. The sandhi rule of nasal velarization resembles phonetically conditioned rules not only in its diachronicdevelopment,butalso in its synchronicbehavior. In dialects where it is well established, it shows the characteristicsof a productive, phonetically conditioned rule. Speakers are usually unaware of its presence. Furthermore,it is so well-rooted in their speech habits that it frequently plays a part in foreign accents. For example, I recently heard the cluster [rjp]in Eng. some people, spoken by a native speaker of Caribbean Spanish. Yet anotherkind of developmentof nasal velarizationcan be seen in dialects where the process has moved inward to word-internalpositions, but still in phoneticallydefinableenvironments(cf. Hammond1979).To take the position of NGP, namely that the sandhi rule was a type of rule somewhere between a P-rule and a morphophonemicrule, would requirethat this developmentbe described as a change from a non-phoneticallyconditioned rule to a phonetically conditioned rule. Such a development seems counter-intuitive;and indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that such developments occur.27However, if we accept phonetically conditioned sandhi
Prenasal position is a frequent environment for velarization; cf. Chavarria-Aguilar 1951, Nunfiez-Cedefo 1977 for examples of word-internal velarization in these environments. In some dialects, velarization in prenasal position apparently represents a process of point-of-articulation dissimilation of nasals; and this process seems distinct from word-final velarization-though converging with it in some historically advanced dialects in which velarization is otherwise moving into word-internal environments. 27 Hooper (1976:91) specifically denies that such a change could occur: 'the typical progression of rules through the grammar is as follows: P-rules are modified to produce new alternations; these may lead to restructuring or the development of MP-rules and via-rules; these in turn may be modified or lost. Other theoretically possible types of change never occur: MP-rules do not become P-rules; via-rules do not become MP-rules or P-rules. MP-rules and via-rules never spring into the grammar fully formulated.'



rules simply as rules whose structuraldescriptions contain word boundaries on a par with phonetic features and syllable or pause boundaries, then the development is merely the not-unexpected generalization of a phonetically conditioned rule. A few hints exist that nasal velarizationmay have begun to morphologize in some areas, though the data are scant and inconclusive (cf. Penny 1978:44, Hammond1979).Syntactic geminationin Italian(?2.1 above) provides a better example of the historical development of a sandhi rule from a phonological process into a morphophonemicone. Geminationin Italiandid not begin as a phonetically conditioned sandhi rule, but rather as a 'normal' phonetically conditioned rule of consonant assimilation;but it became a sandhi rule upon relexicalization of word-internalinstances where the original rule applied. When some of its phonetic environments were lost, this sandhi rule in turn became opaque, acquired lexical conditioning, and thus became a morphophonemic rule. This acquisitionof lexical or morphologicalconditioningupon loss of phonetic conditioningis the same mechanismwhich accompanies the 'death' or morphologizationof P-rules. We have seen that sandhi rules are capable of undergoingthe same types of historicaldevelopments as other P-rules.28 Furthermore,we have seen that to deny that phonetically conditioned sandhi rules have P-rule status would require that we admit as historical developments certain types of change which are believed not to occur-namely, those in which some non-phonetically conditioned process acquires phonetic conditioning. For both these reasons, it appears that the word boundary should be considered a permissible environmentfor (otherwise) phoneticallyconditioned rules.

NGP with options considered in other theories. Since generativegrammar sees its central goal as the unificationof formerly disparatetypes of phonological and morphologicalprocesses, there is little point in looking to that theory for insights. However, a brief examinationof the variety of positions considered by structuralistlinguistics is fruitful. Three structuralistpositions may be recognized, based on the interpretation of the status of boundaries. Each position is determined by the interrelated issues of what that version of the theory takes to be the allowable 'content'
28 For reasons of length, I will not deal with the claim made by NGP that all sound change is, in origin, phonetically motivated (Hooper 1976:84-5, 102, 108-9). That motivation, according to the definition of NGP, specifically excludes the possibility of environments which contain word boundaries. Even if correct, Hooper's claim does not argue against the ability of those sandhi rules which do not involve morphosyntactic or lexical elements (apart from word boundaries) to function as phonetically motivated rules in NGP-since, to be a phonetically motivated rule, a process need not have grown out of a directly equivalent, phonetically motivated sound change. Clearly, though, falsification of the claim would provide added support for the position that some sandhi rules are on a par with other phonetically motivated rules: and I think viable examples could be brought to bear on the issue.

BOUNDARIES.It is instructive to compare the treatment of word boundaries in



of phonemes and their allophones, and its concept of linguistic levels and permissible relationshipsamong them. These in turn determine what it considers to be the directionof cause and effect between boundariesand phonetic manifestations. One position accepts boundariesas outside the phonological environmentsfor the descripsystem, while still consideringthem appropriate tion of allophonicalternationsand phonemicneutralizations (Trubetzkoy1969; Swadesh 1934;Whorf 1943;Pike 1947a,b, 1952). A second position considers boundariesto be phonemes; boundaryphenomena are then either their allophones, or the allophones of phonemes contiguous to them (Trager& Bloch 1941, Bloch & Trager 1942, Z. Harris 1942, Hockett 1955, Hyman 1956). According to the third position, the boundary phenomena are themselves phonemes; it is held that boundariescan be neitherthe cause nor the effect of the phonetic realizationsin question (cf. Chavarria-Aguilar). It is apparentthat two of the categories of alternativesutilized by structuralists are actually more 'liberal', phonetically, than in NGP. The first position allows allophonic statements in the environmentof a unit not considered part of the phonology, while the second permitsboundariesto serve as phonemes. The third position is the most conservative: word boundariesare not allowed to play a part in the phonology, and consequentlythe variantsoccurringin the environmentof boundariesare separate phonemes. It is immediatelyobvious that approachesof the second type-those in whichthe boundaryis a phoneme, either with zero as its allophone or with a heterogeneous group of boundary phenomenaas allophones-are not possible alternativesfor NGP, because of their lack of phonetic realism. That theory must choose between the possibilities included in the first and third positions: (1) the word boundarymust be accepted as a unit recognized by the phonologicalcomponent, and suitable as an environment in terms of which allophonic alternationsmay be stated; or (2) the word boundarymust be ignored in the treatmentof all phonetic alternations, with the consequence of makingthe boundaryphenomenaphonemic. The formeralternativeis the position of phraseboundariesand syllable boundaries in NGP; so the question at hand is not whether boundariesmay serve in this capacity, but whether the word boundaryspecifically may so serve. Because of certainfundamentalpremises, NGP cannot entirelyaccept either of the above-mentionedalternatives;so the currentorganization of the grammar in NGP attempts to straddle the two by introducinga new, somewhat vague group of rules which incorporatescertain features of each while evading the points on which they differ with currentdogma. Thus, from the first position, we have the acceptance of the word boundaryas an environmentfor rules of an allophonic nature;from the third, we have the eliminationof the boundary fromthe phonologicalcomponentproper.But this compromisecannot increase the numberof logically possible alternatives. Leaving aside the possibility of treating the boundary as a phoneme, there are just two possible positions. Either the rules which introduce allophonic variationrecognize word boundaries as possible conditioning environments, or else they do not-in which case, the supposedly allophonic variation at word boundaries is no longer



allophonic, since it is no longer conditioned. NGP seems to want to throw word boundariesout of the phonology without accepting this consequence.29 The only way to remove these boundariesfrom the phonologicalcomponent associated with them is to move withoutlosing the phonologicalgeneralizations some of the phonology out of the phonologicalcomponent as well, by giving certain generalizationsa new name (sandhi rules) and declaringthat they are not P-rules.30 On the face of it, this device 'saves' the dictumthat P-rulesmay not refer to boundariesother than syllable boundaryand pause, but it does so at the cost of appearingto make claims that apparentlyare not intended. The consequence of the currentNGP position is that either (a) the features introducedor changed by P-rules may be allophonic, while those introduced or changed by sandhi rules may not; or (b) allophonic rules are introducedin two different components. The first is apparently not the one intended by proponents of NGP, and the second is vacuous according to the arguments presented in this paper.
5. SUMMARYANDCONCLUSION. As argued above, the separation of sandhi

rules from (other) phonetically motivated rules claims that some distinction exists between the two types of rules-though, indeed, on the basis of synchronic and diachronicevidence, one can identify no such distinction. Additionally, various aspects of the structure of the grammarfail to support a separatecategory of rules. Furtherconsiderationsindicatethat syllable boundaries cannot substitute for word boundariesin phonologicaldescriptions;furthermore, unlabeled boundaries play a different role from grammaticallylabeledboundaries, and shouldnot automatically be excludedfromthe phonological component. We would do well to take an unbiased look at boundariesand the role they play in (otherwise) phonologicalprocesses. As long as we assume that various boundariescan play no part in phonology,3' we have no way of discovering
29 This apparent desire not to consider word-boundary phenomena as phonemic is not surprising. Over the years, the linguists willing to accept the full implications of giving phonemic status to, e.g., word-final [g] in dialects of Spanish, have been in the minority. This shows, I think, the tendency of the majority to pursue the linguists' intuition (despite whatever theoretical complications) that, on distributional grounds and even more on grounds of its behavior in the phonology of the native speaker (presence in foreign accents etc.), this sound, and others which play similar roles in their respective phonologies, cannot be considered contrastive. 30 Although Vennemann clearly intends for sandhi rules to constitute a separate component, Hooper's claims about these rules are compatible with either a model which has a separate sandhirule component, or one which has sandhi rules as a segregated subcomponent within the phonological component. My arguments hold for either position, and my references to a 'separate component' may also be read as a 'separate subcomponent'. 31 It is obvious that many rules with boundaries which have been proposed by transformational generative phonology will in fact not be relevant for phonology as seen by NGP, given the different goals of the two theories (e.g. many of the rules discussed in Stanley 1973); but I think a close look at these will reveal that they are non-phonological in the sense of NGP, for reasons other than merely the boundaries involved.



whetherindeed they do. In this paper, I have dealt only with word boundaries, and we may indeed find that no more boundarytypes are necessary for 'truly phonological'generalizations.Still, we should not jump to such a conclusion. For example, Trubetzkoy's claim (cf. fn. 24) that both morphemeand word boundarieshave phonologicalmanifestationsmay well be merely the result of the structuralists' zeal for classifying-so that, for purposesof describingactive phonologicalprocesses, we may subsume his boundariesunder one heading. However, we should examine the question, and determinean answer in terms of currenttheory; if we assume a position, then we precludethe question and deny ourselves an answer. A problemin dealing with boundariesin phonology which will probablynot have escaped the reader's attentionis that of circularity.If, on the one hand, we assume that boundarieshave no partin phonology, then they surely do not. On the other hand, if we assume that boundariesmay be present in (or recognized by) phonology, we can then state true generalizationswhich include them; and these generalizationswill indeed be 'true', since we have so defined our primes. Thus far, I have dealt explicitly only with the problemof circularity caused by the exclusion of boundaries;but it is clear that allowingboundaries in phonology may be equally circular. This type of circularityresults from relianceon the TGC as not only a necessary requirement for P-rulestatus, but a sufficient requirementas well. Yet it may well be the case that some generalizationsinvolving boundariesare 'true' at the surface level, given the limitations of the boundary, but do not representwhat we want to consider productive phonologicalprocesses or 'trulyphonological'generalizations.(For an exampleof such a rule involvinga morphemeboundary,see ?3.3.) This problem is easily avoided by turningto requirementsfor P-rule status other than the TGC. If we accept attributes such as unsuppressability-or susceptibility to style and tempo variation-as signalingphonologicalproductivity,then these traits may be used to identify which generalizationswe want to define as Prules, regardless of whether they may contain boundaries-and, if they do contain boundaries, regardlessof what boundariesthey contain. In this way, we can define P-rules so that we include all and only the processes which we feel are productiveor truly phonological,and not narrowour vision so that we exclude some of these processes for technical (and not necessarily valid) reasons. In summary, there is a strong case for the availabilityof word boundaries as environments for phonologically productive processes, contrary to the claim made by NGP. If this claim is assumed to have empiricalcontent, then its incorrectness exposes a problem at the very heart of this model of phonology, since the position that P-rulesmay involve only phonologicalsegments and phonological boundaries is central to the thinking of its proponents. If, however, the claim is taken to be true by definition,then not only is it vacuous, but-more importantly-its acceptance excludes from considerationany possible questions and observations concerning the role of word boundaries in phonology. In any case, the question of word boundariesand the question of the availability of other boundariesfor the phonologicalcomponent are best



approached by observing what role boundaries play AFTERthe set of P-rules has been established, rather than by definition. REFERENCES M. 1962. Gramatica catalana, 1. Madrid:Gredos. BADIA MARGARIT,ANTONIO
L. TRAGER. 1942. Outline of linguistic analysis. Baltiand GEORGE BLOCH, BERNARD, more: LSA. BRASINGTON,R. W. P. 1976. On the functional diversity of phonological rules. JL 12.125-52. BUCK, CARL DARLING.1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1962. La pronunciaci6n del espafiol en America. (PubliDELOSLINCOLN. CANFIELD, caciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo, 17.) Bogota. OSCAR LUIS. 1951. The phonemes of Costa Rican Spanish. Lg. CHAVARRiA-AGUILAR, 27.248-53. MARYL. 1979. Some variable rules in Caribbean Spanish and their impliCLAYTON, cations for the model of phonetic variation in Natural Generative Phonology. Paper presented at NWAVE 8, Montreal. - . 1980. Sound change and grammar change in Natural Generative Phonology. Paper read at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky, Lexington. ROBERT.1979. The velar nasal in rapid Cuban Spanish. Colloquium on HAMMOND, Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian linguistics, ed. by J. Lantolf et al., 19-36. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. W. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. HARRIS, JAMES HARRIS, ZELLIG.1942. The phonemes of Moroccan Arabic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 62.309-18. CHARLES F. 1955. A manual of phonology. (IJAL, Memoir 11.) Baltimore. HOCKETT, HOOPER,JOANB. 1972. The syllable in phonological theory. Lg. 48.525-40. . 1976. An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press. RUTHL. 1956. [13]as an allophone denoting open juncture in several SpanishHYMAN, American dialects. Hispania 39.293-9. JURGEN. 1979. Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance morKLAUSENBURGER, phophonology. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. KRUGER, FRITZ. 1923. El dialecto de San Ciprian de Sanabria: Monografia leonesa. (Revista de Filologia Espafiola, Anejo 4.) Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. RAFAEL.1977. Hacia una caracterizaci6n adecuada de la /n/ final en NUNEZ-CEDENO, el espafiol de Santo Domingo. To appear, Proceedings of the Segundo Simposio de Dialectologia del Caribe Hispanico, Santo Domingo. PENNY,RALPH.1978. Estudio estructural del habla de Tudanca. (Supplement to Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, 167.) Tubingen: Niemeyer. L. 1947a. Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. PIKE, KENNETH Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. . 1947b. Grammatical prerequisites to phonemic analysis. Word 3.155-72. . 1952. More on grammatical prerequisites. Word 8.106-21. ROBINSON,KIMBALL. 1979. On the voicing of intervocalic s in the Ecuadorian highlands. RPh. 33.137-43. ROCAPONS, JOSEP. 1971. Introducci6 a l'estudi de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: Vergara. GERHARD. 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer ROHLFS, Mundarten, I: Lautlehre. Bern: Francke.



1889. La pronunciaci6n del castellano en el Ecuador. Revista Ecuatoriana 1.209-16. STANLEY, RICHARD. 1973. Boundaries in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky, 185-206. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. SWADESH, MORRIS. 1934. The phonemic principle. Lg. 10.117-29. TOSCANO HUMBERTO. 1953. El espafiol en el Ecuador. (Revista de Filologia MATEUS, Espafiola, Anejo 61.) Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. . 1964. El espanol hablado en el Ecuador. Presente y futuro de la lengua espafiola, I (Primer Congreso de Instituciones Hispanicas, 1963, Madrid), 111-25. Madrid: Oficina Internacional de Informaci6n y Observaci6n del Espafiol. TRAGER,GEORGEL., and BERNARDBLOCH. 1941. The syllabic phonemes of English. Lg. 17.223-46. NIKOLAI S. 1969. Principles of phonology. Tr. by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe. TRUBETZKOY, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. THEO.1972a. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte VENNEMANN, 18.1-18. .1972b. Phonological uniqueness in Natural Generative Phonology. Glossa 6.105-16. . 1972c. Rule inversion. Lingua 29.209-42. . 1974. Words and syllables in Natural Generative Phonology. Natural Phonology Parasession, 346-74. Chicago: CLS. J. 1977. On the necessity of rule ordering in Natural Generative PhoWALSH,THOMAS nology. Paper presented at the 7th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Cornell University. WHORE, BENJAMINL. 1943. Phonemic analysis of the English of eastern Massachusetts. SIL 2.21-40.

[Received 16 April 1980; Revision received 18 September 1980; Accepted 30 October 1980.]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful