Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2019 / Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *Rime-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English

Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *Rime-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English

Paper · 2019 · Patrick Honeybone

Summary

Honeybone asks how phonotactic restrictions behave over time. Historical phonology mostly studies segmental and prosodic change, so this question is rarely examined. Building on his companion article (Honeybone 2019a), he treats phonotactics as psychologically real constraints on output-like forms. Such constraints can arise, disappear, and block otherwise regular sound changes in narrow environments. He defends the distinction between systematic gaps (S-gaps), which the grammar forbids, and accidental gaps (A-gaps), using loanword behaviour and wordlikeness research as evidence.

The case study is the English constraint *RIME-xxŋ, which rules out forms like [baɪŋ]. The paper argues that:

  • the constraint emerged through "constraint scattering";
  • it later stopped ash-tensing from fully applying in one environment in some American English varieties;
  • some varieties may have lost it.

The analysis uses a hybrid model that combines rules with constraints and is anchored in the variation present when changes start. Two broader conclusions follow. This kind of phonotactic blocking is not prophylaxis in the narrow sense. It is easiest to reconcile with "soft anti-acquisitionism", the view that some change happens after childhood. The work matters because it puts phonotactics into the explanation of sound change.

Key points

  • The paper is a companion to Honeybone (2019a), and the author labels it 2019b. It extends a model in which phonotactics are constraints on surface-like (output-like) forms, slightly relaxed from strictly surface forms.
  • S-gaps vs. A-gaps:
    • S-gaps should resist loanwords and force their adaptation, while A-gaps should fill easily.
    • Iverson & Salmons (2005) is cited as showing that the English "tense vowel + final [ʃ]" gap is accidental.
    • Imported pronunciations like carte blanche are treated as code-switching into a phonological periphery.
  • Wordlikeness ratings are acceptability judgements, not grammaticality judgements. Lexical frequency and neighbourhood density also shape them, so they cannot simply mirror the S/A split. The paper argues that purely statistical accounts fall short, citing Albright and Gorman (2013).
  • The central claim has two parts:
    • *RIME-xxŋ, once innovated, inhibited the surface patterning of ash-tensing in certain American English varieties.
    • This inhibition does not count as prophylaxis once one separates rule effects from constraint effects and lexical from post-lexical phonology.
  • On acquisition:
    • The paper distinguishes acquisitionism, soft anti-acquisitionism (Halle 1962: adults can add or drop a few rules) and strong anti-acquisitionism (Foulkes & Vihman 2015).
    • The author favours the soft version.
    • He notes Fruehwald (2017), who found that lifespan change occurred in fewer than half of the changes he examined.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Gaps are split into those the grammar forbids and those that are merely unfilled, and the split is tested by how each reacts to borrowed material. This turns an invisible property into a testable prediction.
  • I2. A hard constraint can leave a regular process intact everywhere except one environment, where it blocks the output. Keeping the general process and the blocking constraint as separate components explains the exception rather than memorising it.
  • I3. Human acceptability ratings mix grammar with frequency and neighbourhood effects, so they should not be read as direct grammaticality verdicts. Evaluations should separate these influences.
  • I4. The model is anchored in variation present at the moment a change begins, rather than in idealised categorical stages.
  • I5. Some structure is fixed early, and only small additions happen later (soft anti-acquisitionism). This suggests that systems should freeze core constraints while allowing limited rule additions.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tokens): Unknown-word handling in the tagger and lemmatiser could separately flag strings that break hard English spelling or morphology patterns and strings that are just unseen. Adapted foreign forms would then be routed differently from plausible novel coinages.
  • I2 (learn): Self-induced repair rules could be stored as a general rule plus explicit blocking conditions, so each exception has a named, explainable cause instead of being a patched special case.
  • I3 (learn): When an LLM teacher tier or a plausibility score judges parses or sentences, negative controls could include frequent-but-ungrammatical and rare-but-grammatical items to expose frequency bias.
  • I4 (tree): The UD dialect conversion layer could represent competing annotation conventions as coexisting variants with conditions. This would avoid forcing one canonical form too early.
  • I5 (learn): Training could lock well-established core constraints after an initial phase and permit only small, auditable rule additions from later self-play. This would keep the system stable and explainable.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of EdinburghEdinburgh · United Kingdom255 works · 68,771 citations

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 9,296 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 9,206 worksPsychology · 798 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 463 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 1,373 works

Cite

Cite as Patrick Honeybone. 2019. Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *Rime-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English. Papers in Historical Phonology 4.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.2218/pihph.4.2019.4192

@inproceedings{honeybone2019phonotactics,
  title = {{Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *Rime-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English}},
  author = {Patrick Honeybone},
  booktitle = {Papers in Historical Phonology 4},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.2218/pihph.4.2019.4192},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.4.2019.4192}
}

References

105 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Albright, Adam. In preparation. Natural classes are not enough: Biased generalization in novel onset clusters. Available here: http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/ ↗
  2. Albright, Adam. 2006. Gradient phonotactic effects: lexical? grammatical? both? neither? Talk presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque. Available here: Patrick Honeybone http://www.mit.edu/~albright/papers/Albright-GradientPhonotactics-LSA2006.pdf ↗
  3. Algeo, John. 1975. Syncope and the phonotactics of English. General Linguistics 15. 71–78. find
  4. Algeo, John. 1978. What Consonant Clusters Are Possible? Word 29. 206–224 Bailey, George. 2018. Variation and change in Northern English velar nasals: Production and perception. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. ↗
  5. Baldwin, Thomas. 1846. A Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer. Third edition. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blakiston. find
  6. Bauer, Laurie. 2015. English phonotactics. English Language and Linguistics 19. 437–475. find
  7. Baumann, Andreas, Nikolaus Ritt & Christina Prömer. 2016. Diachronic dynamics of Middle English phonotactics provide evidence for analogy effects among lexical and morphonotactic consonant clusters. Papers in Historical Phonology 1. 50–75. ↗
  8. Becker, Kara & Amy Wong. 2009. The short-a system of New York City English: an update. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 1(2). 9–20. find
  9. Berent, Iris. 2013. The phonological mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  10. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1998. Prosodic optimization: the Middle English length adjustment. English Language and Linguistics 2. 169– 197. ↗
  11. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2003. The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson & Östen Dahl (eds.), Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on ‘Variation within Optimality Theory’, 25-36. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. find
  12. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, volume 4, 2019–2048. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. find
  13. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374– 399. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  14. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt. Bosworth, Joseph & Thomas Toller. 1898-1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. With supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Electronic version: http://bosworthtoller.com/Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change Bowie, David & Malcah Yaeger-Dror. 2015. Phonological change in real time. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.) The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 603-618. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  15. Carr, Philip, Jacques Durand & Colin Ewen (eds). 2005. Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  16. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1965. Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics 1(2). 97–138. ↗
  17. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. find
  18. Dewan, Ted. 2003. Bing: get dressed. Oxford: David Fickling Books. find
  19. Dobson, E.J. 1968. English pronunciation 1500-1700. Second edition. Two volumes. Oxford: Clarendon. find
  20. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe. 1979. The study of natural phonology. In Daniel Dinnsen (ed.), Current Approaches to Phonological Theory, 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Dresher, B. Elan. 2015. Rule-based generative historical phonology. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.) The Oxford handbook of the historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  21. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2005. Phonotactics of consonant clusters in the history of English. In Bertacca, Antonio (ed.), Historical linguistic studies of spoken English, 15-34. Pisa: PLUS – Pisana University Press. find
  22. Ferguson, Charles. 1972. ‘Short a’ in Philadelphia English. In M. Estellie Smith (ed.), Studies in linguistics in honor of George L. Trager, 259-74. The Hague: Mouton. find
  23. Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ↗
  24. Flanders, Michael & Donald Swann. 1957. A gnu. London: Parlophone. find
  25. Foulkes, Paul & Marilyn Vihman. 2015. First language acquisition and phonological change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.) The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 289–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  26. Fruehwald, Josef. 2017. Generations, lifespans, and the zeitgeist. Language Variation and Change 29(1). 1–27 Fudge, Erik. 1969. Syllables. Journal of Linguistics 5. 253–286. ↗
  27. Garrett, Andrew & Juliette Blevins. 2009. Analogical morphophonology. In Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds), The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, 527–45. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. find
  28. Patrick Honeybone Giegerich, Heinz. 1992. English phonology: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilliéron, Jules. 1915–1921. Pathologie et thérapeutique verbales. Four volumes. Various publishers, including Paris: Champion. find
  29. Gimson, A.C. 1962. An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold. find
  30. Goldsmith, John (ed.). 1993. Phonological theory: the essential readings. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell. find
  31. Gorman, Lyle. 2013. Generative phonotactics. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. find
  32. Hale, Mark. 2003. Neogrammarian sound change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 343–368. Malden: Blackwell. ↗
  33. Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Moulton. find
  34. Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72. ↗
  35. Hammond, Michael. 1999. The phonology of English: a prosodic Optimality-Theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  36. Harms, Robert. 1968. Introduction to phonological theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. find
  37. Harris, John. 1989. Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. Journal of Linguistics 25. 35–56. ↗
  38. Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  39. Hayes, Bruce. 2009. Introductory phonology. Malden & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. find
  40. Hayes, Bruce & Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379– 440. ↗
  41. Hill, Archibald. 1958. Introduction to linguistic structures: from sound to sentence in English. New York: Harcourt, Brace. find
  42. Hockett, Charles. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23. 321. ↗
  43. Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. ↗
  44. Hogg, Richard. 1992. A grammar of Old English, vol. 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  45. Honeybone, Patrick. 2001. Lenition inhibition in Liverpool English. English Language and Linguistics 5. 213–249. ↗
  46. Honeybone, Patrick. 2005. Sharing makes us stronger: process inhibition and segmental structure. In Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin Ewen (eds.), Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: phonological papers in honour of John Anderson, 167– 192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change Honeybone, Patrick. 2006. Review of: D. Erc Holt (ed.) 2003. Optimality Theory and Language Change. Journal of Linguistics 42, 726-731. ↗
  47. Honeybone, Patrick. 2016. Are there impossible changes? θ > f but f ≯ θ. Papers in Historical Phonology 1. 316–358. find
  48. Honeybone, Patrick. 2019. Can phonotactic constraints inhibit segmental change? Arguments from lenition and syncope. Folia Linguistica Historica 40. 9–36. find
  49. Honeybone, Patrick & Joseph Salmons. 2015. Introduction: key questions for historical phonology. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 3–10. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  50. Iverson, Gregory & Joseph Salmons. 2005. Filling the gap: English tense vowel plus final /š/. Journal of English Linguistics 33. 207–221. find
  51. Jensen, John. 1993. English phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  52. King, Robert D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. find
  53. Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. PhD thesis, MIT. find
  54. Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 171–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. find
  55. Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In William O. Dingwall (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576-649. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program. find
  56. Kiparsky, Paul. 1974. On the evaluation measure. In Anthony Bruck, Robert Fox & Michael LaGaly (eds.), Proceedings of the parasession on natural phonology, tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 328-37. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. find
  57. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In In-Seok Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL–1981, vol. 1, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. find
  58. Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138. ↗
  59. Kiparsky, Paul. 1988. Phonological change. In Frederick Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, volume 1, 363–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  60. Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. In Nancy A. Ritter (ed.), A review of Optimality Theory. Special issue of Linguistic Review 17. 351–67. ↗
  61. Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill. Available here: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/proto-germanic ↗
  62. Kruisinga, Etsko. 1943. The phonetic structure of English words. Bern: A. Francke. find
  63. Patrick Honeybone Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57. 267–308. ↗
  64. Labov, William 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  65. Labov, William, Sabriya Fisher, Duna Gylfadottír, Anita Henderson & Betsy Sneller. 2016. Competing systems in Philadelphia phonology. Language Variation and Change 28. 273–305. ↗
  66. Lahiri, Aditi & B. Elan Dresher. 1999. Open syllable lengthening in West Germanic. Language 75. 678–719. ↗
  67. Lass, Roger. 1974. Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy. In John Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical linguistics: proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2-7 September 1973, volume 2, 311-52. Amsterdam: North-Holland. find
  68. Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume 2: 1066-1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  69. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  70. Lass, Roger. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, volume 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  71. Lentz, Tomas & René Kager. 2015. Categorical phonotactic knowledge filters second language input, but probabilistic phonotactic knowledge can still be acquired. Language and Speech 58. 387–413. ↗
  72. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  73. Lindsey, Geoff & Péter Szigetvári. 2013. Current British English Searchable Transcriptions. http://cube.elte.hu/. ↗
  74. Luick, Karl. 1898. Beitrage zur englischen Grammatik, III: Die Quantitatsveranderungen im Laufe der englischen Sprachentwicklung. Anglia 20. 335–62. Luick, Karl. 1914-1940. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Bernhard Tauchnitz. Reprinted 1964. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  75. Lutz, Angelika. 1988. On the historical phonotactics of English. In Dieter Kastovsky & Gero Bauer (eds), Luick revisited: papers read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloss Liechtenstein, 15-18.9.1985, 221-239. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. find
  76. Lutz, Angelika. 1991. Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonanten-veränderungen in der Geschichte des Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. MED = Middle English Dictionary. Original version 1952–2001. Updated online version, revised 2018. Michigan: University of Michigan Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change Library. Available here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary ↗
  77. Minkova, Donka. 1982. The environment for open syllable lengthening in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3(2). 29–58. ↗
  78. Minkova, Donka. 2003. Alliteration and sound change in early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  79. Minkova, Donka. 2014. A historical phonology of English. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. ↗
  80. Minkova, Donka & Robert Stockwell. 1996. The origins of long-short allomorphy in English. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds), Advances in English historical linguistics 1996, 211–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  81. Ohala, John. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie Masek, Roberta Hendrick & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. find
  82. Ohala, John. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives, 237–278. London: Longman. find
  83. Osthoff, Hermann. 1879. Das physiologische und psychologische Moment in der sprachlichen Formenbildung. Berlin: Habel. OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Original version 1884–1928. Supplements 1933-1986. Online version consulted in December 2019. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available here: http://www.oed.com/ ↗
  84. Paul, Hermann. 1886. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Second edition. Halle: Max Niemeyer. find
  85. Reiss, Charles. 2003. Language change without constraint reranking. In D. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change, 143– 168. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ↗
  86. Ringe, Donald & Joseph Eska. 2013. Historical linguistics: toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  87. Ritt, Nikolaus. 1994. Quantity adjustment: vowel lengthening and shortening in Early Middle English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  88. Robinson, Orrin. 1976. A ‘scattered’ rule in Swiss German. Language 52. 148–62. ↗
  89. Roca, Iggy & Wyn Johnson. 1999. A Workbook in Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  90. Ross, Erica. 2011. Diachronic developments in the scope of phonological generalisations. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Patrick Honeybone Salmons, Joseph. In preparation. Sound Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. find
  91. Sankoff, Gillian & Hélèn Blondeau. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83. 560–88. ↗
  92. Scholes, Robert. 1966. Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton. Schütze, Carson. To appear. Acceptability ratings cannot be taken at face value. In Samuel Schindler, Anna Drozdzowicz & Karen Brøcker (eds.), Linguistic intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004862 ↗
  93. Shatzman, Keren & René Kager. 2007. A role for phonotactic constraints in speech perception. ICPhC XVI, Saarbrücken, 1409–1412. find
  94. Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Wolfgang Dressler et al. (ed.), Phonologica 1984, 273-285. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. find
  95. Sneller, Betsy. 2018. Mechanisms of Phonological Change. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. find
  96. Sneller, Betsy. 2019. Allophonic systems as a variable within individual speakers. In David Lightoot (ed.), Variable properties in language: their nature and acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. ↗
  97. Sommerstein, Alan. 1974. On phonotactically motivated rules. Journal of Linguistics 10. 71–94. Spence, Thomas. 1775. The grand repository of the English Language. Newcastle Upon Tyne: printed by T. Saint, for the author, and sold by him at his school on the Keyside, and by all the booksellers in town and country. Sprouse, Jon. in press. Acceptability judgment methods. In: Jon Sprouse (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Experimental Syntax. Oxford University Press. ↗
  98. Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43. 393–436. ↗
  99. Steriade, Donca. 1999. Alternatives to the syllabic interpretation of consonantal phonotactics. In Osamu Fujimura, Brian Joseph & Bohumil Palek (eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Linguistics and Phonetics Conference, 205-242. Prague: Karolinum Press. find
  100. Szigetvári, Péter. 2007. Branching onsets and syncope in English. Language Sciences 29. 408–25. ↗
  101. Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press Uffmann, Christian. 2015. Loanword adaptation. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, 644-665. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Kemenade, Ans. 2007. Formal syntax and language change: developments and outlook. Diachronica 24. 155–169 Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change Walker, John. 1791. A critical pronouncing dictionary and expositor of the English Language. London: sold by G. G. J. and J. Robinson, Paternoster Row; and T. Cadell, in the Strand. find
  102. Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↗
  103. William Labov, Sabriya Fisher, Duna Gylfadottir, Anita Henderson & Betsy Sneller. 2016. Competing systems in Philadelphia phonology. Language Variation and Change 28(3). 273–305. ↗
  104. Yang, Charles. 2005. On productivity. Linguistic variation yearbook 5(1). 265–302. find
  105. Yang, Charles. 2016. The price of productivity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/honeybone-2019-phonotactics-prophylaxis-acquisitionism-change-rime/