LEADER 03378nam 2200601 a 450 001 9910781592703321 005 20230213212244.0 010 $a1-283-32890-9 010 $a9786613328908 010 $a90-272-8090-8 035 $a(CKB)2550000000064161 035 $a(EBL)799781 035 $a(OCoLC)769341969 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000635756 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11392703 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000635756 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10659659 035 $a(PQKB)10234683 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC799781 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL799781 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10513306 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000064161 100 $a19820128d1981 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aGenerative phonology$b[electronic resource] $ea case-study from French /$fNigel Love 210 $aAmsterdam $cJohn Benjamins B.V.$d1981 215 $a1 online resource (249 p.) 225 1 $aLingvisticć investigationes. Supplementa ;$vv. 4 300 $aU.S. place of publication stamped on t.p. 300 $aRevision of thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Oxford. 311 $a90-272-3113-3 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aGENERATIVE PHONOLOGYA Case-Study from French; Editorial page; Title page; Copyright page; PREFACE; Table of contents; INTRODUCTION; FINAL SEGMENTS AND GENDER INFLECTION IN FRENCH; 1. THE DELETION RULES; 1.1 Liaison as non-deletion; 1.2 Liaison as metathesis; 1.3 Liaison as syntax; 2. EXCEPTIONS TO THE DELETION RULES; 2.1 There are exceptions to the deletion rules; 2.2 There are no exceptions to the deletion rules; 2.3 There are exceptions to the deletion rules; 3. INVARIANT ADJECTIVES; 3.1 Vowel-final stems; 3.2 Consonant-final stems; 4. THE SCOPE OF THE DELETION RULES 327 $a4.1 Nasals and nasalisation4.2 Derivational augments and 'secondary derivation'ˇ; 5. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS; 5.1 There is no consonant deletion rule: liaison as epenthesis; 5.2 There is a (minor) consonant deletion rule; 6. THE FUNCTIONAL UNITY OF ELISION AND LIAISON; 6.1 Elision and liaison as natural rules; 6.2 Elision and liaison as conspiratorial rules; 7. SUMMARY; 7.1 Final segments; 7.2 Gender inflection; CONCLUSION; REFERENCES 330 $aThis study is a discussion of, rather than a contribution to, generative phonology. The central question posed, is: Does linguistic theory provide a basis for choosing between competing grammars - that is, an evaluation procedure for grammars? If so, then what is its form? If not, then how are we to interpret controversies between linguists as to the relative merits of competing grammars? These issues will be discussed in relation to a particular problem of evaluation in the treatment of the morphonology of final segments in Modern French. 410 0$aLinguisticae investigationes.$pSupplementa ;$vv. 4. 606 $aFrench language$xPhonology 606 $aFrench language$xGrammar, Generative 615 0$aFrench language$xPhonology. 615 0$aFrench language$xGrammar, Generative. 676 $a441/.5 700 $aLove$b Nigel$01516994 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910781592703321 996 $aGenerative phonology$93753780 997 $aUNINA