Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:54:01.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nigel Love, Generative phonology: a case-study from French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981. Pp. viii + 241. - Bernard Tranel, Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Pp. xii + 324.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jacques Durand
Jacques Durand
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 487 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1982). The analysis of French schwa; or, how to get something for nothing. Lg 58. 534–573.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dell, F. (1973). Les règles et les sons. Paris: Hermann. translated as Generative phonology and French phonology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1982). Linguistics demythologised. Review of Harris' The language myth. London Review of Books, 19 08 to 2 09.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1982). Review of Foley, Theoretical morphology of the French verb. JL 18. 474–477.Google Scholar
Foley, J. (1979). Theoretical morphology of the French verb. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1974). Rule inversion, opacity, conspiracies: French liaison and elision. Lingua 34, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1977). Deletion vs. epenthesis: intra- vs. inter-paradigmatic arguments in linguistics. Lingua 42. 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978a). Liaison 1977: The case for epenthesis. Studies in French Linguistics 1: 2. 1–20.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978b). French linking phenomena: A natural generative analysis. Lg 54. 21–40.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978c). Mikolaj Kruszewski's theory of morphophonology. Historiographia Linguistica: v: 1/2. 109–120.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1978). Discussion of Klausenburger's paper. Studies in French Linguistics 1: 2. 21–26.Google Scholar
Love, N. (1977). The generative phonological analysis of non-vocalic alternations in modern French. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Passy, P. (1922). Les sons du français. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1972). Natural rules in phonology. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. P. S. (eds), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. 199–229.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1974). There is no French truncation rule. In Campbell, R. J. et al. (eds), Linguistic studies in Romance languages. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 89–99.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1974). The phonology of nasal vowels in modern French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1976). A note on final consonant deletion in modern French. Lingua 39. 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. (1976). Introduction to French phonology and morphology. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.Google Scholar