- See, for instance, Alan R. Thomas, “Generative Phonology in Dialectology,” Transactions of the Philological Society, 1967, pp. 179–203; Rudolph C. Troike, “Receptive Competence, Productive Competence, and Performance,” Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 22, 1969, pp. 63–73; and Charles James N. Bailey, Variation and Linguistic Theory (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973). The proposal by B. Bickerton, “The Structure of Polylectal Grammars,” Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 25, pp. 17–42, is essentially similar. As is pointed out by I. Warburton in his review (p. 379) in Lingua, XXXIV (1974), Brian Newton adopts this procedure in The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 8, 1972, without explicitly claiming any theoretical justification for it.
- see, for instance, Morris Halle, “Phonology in Generative Grammar,” Word, XVIII (1962), 54–72; Wayne A. O'Neil, “The Dialects of Modern Faroese: A Preliminary Report,” Orbis, XII (1963), 393–397; E. S. Klima, “Relatedness between Grammatical Systems,” Language, XL (1964), 1–20; and Sol Saporta, “Ordered Rules, Dialect Differences, and Historical Processes,” Language, XLI (1965), 218–224.
- There is more extensive discussion of this point in Thomas, “Generative Phonology.”
- Though it was suggested by the data in some earlier discussions, such as O'Neil, “The Dialects of Modern Faroese 'and Klima, 'Relatedness.”
- Lyle Campbell, “Is a Generative Dialectology Possible?,” Orbis, XXI (1972), 289–298.
- See n. 1 above.
- See n. 1 above.
- The symbols used in this article are the conventional ones and need no explanation. Note however that, in the rules,: means ‘in the context’; c. means ‘any number of consonants or none’; and ‘marks primary stress. Underlying forms are capitalized. This is a useful convention for pointing up the status of the underlying forms and it has been used for that reason. However, such a procedure has at least one disadvantage, in making necessary a largely spurious rule (e.g. I →i) which does no more than make the symbol accessible to the operation of the grammar.
- As defined, for instance, in William Labov, “The Study of Language in its Social Context,” Studium Generate, XXIII (1970), 30–87.
- See Klima, ‘Relatedness.
- See n. 1 above. Cf. Bickerton's “‘rule-shift’ component” (see n. 1 above).
- See, for instance, T. Darlington, “Some Dialectal Boundaries in Mid-Wales: With Notes on the History of the Palatalization of Long A,” Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1900-1, pp. 13–39; and Alf Sommer felt, Studies in Cyfeiliog Welsh: A Contribution to Welsh Dialectology (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1925), p. 135.
- See Halle, p. 66.
- Sommer felt, pp. 140–142.
- For a discussion of similar phenomena in relation to dialect borrowing in Wales, see Alan R. Thomas, “A Note on Dialect Borrowing,” Studia Celtica, VII (1972), 163–167. The data discussed there share with these data the fact of unisegmental modification; the modifications involved are not geographically contained, however, as these are.
WORD
Volume 28, 1977 - Issue 1-2: Celtic Linguistics--1976