Lings_P2_M33: Rule Ordering

No or Simultaneous Rule Order Versus Linear Rule Order(Roca and Johnson)

Examples for both

No order: Intrinsic Ordering Versus Extrinsic ordering

Rule Ordering Hypothesis

Gains of extrinsic rule ordering (Halle, Odden, Jensen)

Examples of extrinsic rule ordering: Sanskrit

Canadian English

Russian Devoicing (Jensen)

Other rules of Russian to illustrate Rule interaction

(Jensen)

Iterative and Rhythmic rules (Jensen)

Yawelmani (Jensen)

Universal rule ordering: The Elsewhere Condition

(Roca & Johnson, p. 582)

Exercise

In Western Finnish, word-final /k/ (synchronically justified in the grammar) is either assimilated to
the word-initial consonant of a following word, or deleted before a pause or if the following word is
vowel initial, as we can see in the examples below:

menekpois → meneppois ‘go away’

menek alas →mene alas ‘go down’

mene →mene ‘go’

(i) Write two rules to derive both these facts.

(ii) State which of them is more specific than the other, and how the Elsewhere Condition
applies to them?

1
 (iii) Can the Elsewhere Condition prevent the incorrect deletion of the word-final /k/ from
menekkotiin ([menekkoti:n], not *[menekoti:n])?

Cyclic rules

Ordering Paradox (Clark &Yallop)

Partial rule ordering

How do we establish rule ordering? Peng: 180-184)

How does transitivity determine the overall order of rule application?

Types of Rule Ordering

--------------------------------------------------

32.1 Introduction

In this module, we discuss the issues relating to rule ordering, a topic of central concern in
generative phonology. We try to take up the question of the need for rule ordering in the
grammar, the difficulties relating to rule order, the attempt at predicting rule order by
means of universal principles, the basis for establishing rule ordering, and the types of rule
order found in world languages. At the end of the module, a student is expected to be
familiar with the main issues relating to rule order to be able to address these issues in
other (sub-)theories of generative phonology, such as lexical phonology and Optimality
Theory (in Paper 5)

32.2 The Rule Ordering Controversy

The notion of rule ordering is at the heart of generative phonology. In his classic paper,
Morris Halle (1962) showed how the goal of accounting for phonological knowledge by
following the criteria of simplicity and generality can be realized by assuming that
phonological rules are ordered in relation to one another in the grammar. Since its
inception, the notion has however been controversial, with two extreme positions- No or
Simultaneous Rule Ordering (best presented in Kotsoudas et al. 1974) and Linear Rule

2
Ordering (Chomsky and Halle 1968). There is also a middle position, held by advocates of
Partial Rule Ordering (see e.g. Sommerstein 1977).

The position regarding ‘No rule ordering’ is based on the notion of phonological rules
applying to phonological forms once their Structural Description is met. We say in Module
31, for example, how when the structural description of a rule such as /r/ deletion in
Standard British English is met it applies. The rule can be stated as

32/1 /r/- Deletion

/r/ →ø /__ (#) C

That is, /r/ is deleted when it is followed by a consonant within or across words or when it
occurs word-finally. The rule applies in the forms A, which meet the structural description
of the rule, i.e. r(#)C or r#, but not in the forms B, which do not meet the structural
description of the rule.
32/2 A B

wɑ: war weəri weary

fɪə fear fɪəring fearing

wɑ:rendɪd war ended wɑ: bɪgæn war began

Standard British English also has another rule, /r/ Intrusion Rule (see e.g. ), stated as
follows:
32/3 /r/-- Intrusion

ø→ /r/ / V#___#V

That is, /r/ is inserted between words that end and begin with a vowel, as in ‘law and
order’ [lɔ:rəndɔ:də] or ‘the idea is’ [ðɪaɪdɪərɪz].
Adherents to ‘No or Simultaneous Rule Order’ assume that phonological rules need not be
ordered in relation to each other. The rules apply following a scan of the underlying
representation if their structural description is met. Thus the rules /r/-Deletion and /r/-
Intrusion apply simultaneously rather than in a sequence.

3
Linear Rule Ordering is assumed to involve the application of rules in a sequence. Aneasy
example to illustrate linear rule ordering can be given from morphology, as shown by
Gussenhoven and Jacobs 1998). Often languages have regular and irregular rules of
allomorphy. Thus the words man, ox and datum have irregular plurals in the forms men,
nuclei and data respectively, and the words bag, cat and bush have the regular plural
allomorphs in the forms bags, cats and bushes, respectively. If the irregular and the regular
rules of plural allomorphs were to apply simultaneously, then the regular allomorphy rule
could apply, giving the forms *mans, *oxes and *datas, as sometimes they are in the speech
of non-native speakers of English or in the speech of infants. In order to prevent the
unacceptable plural forms *mans, *oxes and *datas, it is necessary to apply the irregular
allomorphy rules first. After they have applied, the regular plural allomorphy rules would
apply. The linear ordering between the two sets of rules assumes that the irregular rules
apply first. After they have applied and all the irregular forms have been assigned, the
regular plural allomorphy rules apply to the rest of the forms. Thus, linear rule ordering
assumes that given rules A and B, if rule A is ordered to apply firstthen rule B applies to the
output of rule A.

32.3 Adherents to the ‘No Rule Ordering’ position consider various cases of rule ordering as
in fact cases of no rule ordering in different forms.

A useful distinction between the two positions is that of Intrinsic Orderingversus

Extrinsic Ordering. The difference between them lies in the grammar not specifying the
ordering versus the grammar specifying the ordering. Most cases of rule ordering are
argued to be cases of Intrinsic Ordering. For instance, Urdu has the variant forms [ɟəhã:n]
and [ɟəhã:] derived from the underlying form /ɟəha:n/. The rules involved in deriving the surface
forms are Vowel Nasalization that nasalizes an adjacent vowel (subject to certain restrictions that
we do not go into here) and Final Nasal Consonant Deletion, that deletes a word final nasal
consonant. We do not however, find the form *[ɟəha:]. It must be be assumed in order to get the
variant forms [ɟəhã:n] and [ɟəhã:] from the underlying form /ɟəha:n/, the rule of vowel
Nasalization must apply first. After it has applied, the Final Nasal Consonant Deletion rule
applies. If the rules apply in the reverse order, then the form [ɟəhã:] would not be possible. The

4
ordering between the two rules however can be considered to be intrinsic between the two rules.
It is natural for vowels to be nasalized before the nasal consonant is deleted.

Iterative and Rhythmic rules (Jensen)

Universal rule ordering: The Elsewhere Condition

(Roca & Johnson, p. 582)

Exercise

In Western Finnish, word-final /k/ (synchronically justified in the grammar) is either assimilated to
the word-initial consonant of a following word, or deleted before a pause or if the following word is
vowel initial, as we can see in the examples below:

menekpois → meneppois ‘go away’

menek alas →mene alas ‘go down’

mene →mene ‘go’

(i) Write two rules to derive both these facts.

(ii) State which of them is more specific than the other, and how the Elsewhere Condition
apply to them?
(iii) Can the Elsewhere Condition prevent the incorrect deletion of the word-final /k/ from
menekkotiin ([menekkoti:n], not *[menekoti:n])?

Cyclic rules

Ordering Paradox

See also “Linerar ordering..” (Clark &Yallop)

Partial rule ordering

32.4 Linear Rule Ordering

Extrinsic ordering

Rule Ordering Hypothesis

Gains of extrinsic rule ordering (Halle, Odden, Jensen)

Examples of extrinsic rule ordering: Sanskrit

Canadian English

5
 Russian Devoicing (Jensen)

Other rules of Russian to illustrate Rule interaction

(Jensen)

Yawelmani (Jensen)

32.5 How do we establish rule ordering? Peng: 180-184)

How does transitivity determine the overall order of rule application?

32.6Types of Rule Ordering

Optimality Theory (discussed separately) approaches the issue of rule ordering differently: because OT
has no rules, there can be no rule ordering. OT more closely resembles the Direct Mapping Hypothesis
of Kenstowicz&Kisseberth 1978 (also Koskeniemi’s two-level phonology), since there are no
intermediate steps between the underlying and surface forms. In OT, a surface form is selected directly,
by reference to the relationship between the underlying form and the surface form, with respect to a
set of constraints that are evaluated in a particular order that needs to be specified for the language. OT
still requires a combinatoric device with the permutational possibilities found with rule ordering, in the
form of constraint ranking ˜ a grammar in OT is seen as a set of ranked (ordered) constraints, so we face
the question of possible permutations, in this case, permutations of the set of constraints. Derivationally
intermediate forms are not part of a standard OT account. Kiparsky (2000) proposes a hybrid model of
Lexical Phonology and Optimality theory, along lines conjectured by McCarthy & Prince (1993) for
AxinincaCampa and other places in the OT literature, where a phonology has ordered levels, but the
content of each level is a single input-to-output mapping as typically assumed for OT (and Harmonic
Phonology). In addition, recent work in OT in the area of Harmonic Serialism has replaced the single-step
derivation from underlying forms to surface forms with a repeated processing of a form, improving the
input one step at a time.