UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

COURSE TITLE: ADVANCED PHONOLOGY

COURSE CODE: ENG 781

GROUP 13
TOPIC: RULE FORMALISATION AND RULE ORDERING

MEMBERS
S/N NAMES MATRIC NUMBER

1 ADEDOKUN Dare Timothy 251882 (ENG)

2 ADELEKAN Abosede Kafilat 252450 (ENG)
3 OKELOLA Abigael Abimbola 207057 (ASE/ENG)
4 OJO Janet Kehinde 253256 (ASE/ENG)

Lecturers-in-Charge
Professor Adenike Akinjobi
Professor Sunday Adesina

June 2025
Abstract

The phenomenon of formalization of phonological rules and their ordering are integral to
understanding sound patterns across languages. Rule formalization provides a systematic
framework for describing phonological processes and identifying universal tendencies in
sound systems. Rule ordering, on the other hand, plays a critical role in ensuring that
surface forms are derived correctly and that phonotactic constraints are maintained. In
phonology, rules govern how sounds behave in specific environments, and these rules are
typically applied to an underlying representation (UR) to yield the surface form (SF).
Overgeneration occurs when phonological rules are applied in a way that produces non-
possible surface forms or forms that violate phonotactic constraints. By ensuring that rules
are applied in a well-defined order, we prevent overgeneration and reduce the possibility
of producing forms that do not exist in the language, helping to make phonological theory
more precise and robust.

This paper thus provides a critical examination of the concept of rule formalization and
rule ordering, highlighting their roles in the understanding of sound patterns in language;
it explores ideas of phonological and phonetic rules, interrogates the interaction of
Generative Phonology as well as Optimality Theory with rule formalization and rule
ordering, and unearths the syndrome of bookish English among non-native settings.
Lastly, it incorporates a case study on the representation of rule ordering in specific
languages.

Keywords: Rule ordering, generative phonology, optimality theory, rule formalization,

phonological processes, overgeneration, bookish English

Word count: 220

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page i
Abstract ii
Table of contents iii

Introduction 1
Conceptual overview 1
Phonological processes and phonological rules 1
Rule formalization and rule ordering 2
Types of phonological processes 3
Phonological rules 5
Application of the phonological rules outlined by
describing the phonological processes 6
Rule formalisation phenomenon 7
The three cardinals of distinctive features 8
Divisions of the distinctive features 8
Notations used in rule formalisation 11
Elements in formal rule representations 12
Rule ordering 13
Rule ordering interaction 13
Importance of rule ordering in phonology 16
Theoretical frameworks and their impact on rule formalization and ordering 17
Generative Phonology 17
Optimality Theory 17
Usage-Based Approaches 18
The evolution of rule ordering: from Generative Phonology to Optimality Theory 18
Rules and constraints 18
Implications of rule formalisation and rule ordering for phonological theory 19
Case studies on analysis of rule ordering in specific languages 19
The bookish English syndrome in non-native settings:
when rule ordering is neglected 22
Conclusion 23
Reference 24
1.0 Introduction
Phonology and phonetics are key concepts in the descriptions of speech sounds.
Meanwhile, despite having to interrogate speech sounds, their approach differs
significantly. While phonology deals with the abstract, cognitive structures that underlie
sound patterns in a language, phonetics focuses on the physical properties and processes
involved in sound production, transmission, and perception. Phonological and phonetic
rules govern how sounds behave and interact in language, yet these rules often function in
distinct, albeit interconnected, ways.

Phonological rules play a crucial role in modeling how sounds interact within a language.
They pertain to the abstract cognitive processes that regulate sound patterns within a
language. These rules often describe how sounds are represented in the mental lexicon
(underlying forms, known as phonemic level of representation in Generative Phonology)
and how they are transformed into their surface forms in spoken language. Phonetic rules,
by contrast, concern the actual physical properties of speech sounds. These rules are
concerned with how speech sounds are articulated (articulatory phonetics), how they
propagate as sound waves (acoustic phonetics), and how they are perceived (auditory
phonetics). Phonetic rules do not operate on abstract mental representations, but rather
describe the observable phenomena of speech production and perception.

In many instances, phonological and phonetic rules interact in complex ways; thus,
they are not entirely separate. While phonological rules describe abstract sound patterns,
they are often constrained or influenced by phonetic factors. For example, phonological
processes like assimilation often occur because of ease in articulation, a phenomenon
rooted in phonetic considerations. Furthermore, phonetic factors like coarticulation
influence the application of phonological rules. In English, the pronunciation of “input”
as \[ɪmpʊt] reflects both phonological and phonetic influences, as the assimilation of /n/ to
/p/ reduces the articulatory effort required. Thus, phonetic factors can either facilitate or
inhibit phonological processes.

2.0 Conceptual Overview

2.1 Phonological Processes and Phonological Rules
A variety of phonological processes exist. Describing phonological processes, Schane
(1973:49) posits that:

“when morphemes are combined to form words, the

segments of neighbouring morphemes become juxtaposed
and sometimes undergo change. Changes also occur in
environments other than those in which two morphemes
come together. All such changes will be called phonological
processes”.
In their research paper entitled Phonological Analysis of the Discourse of Selected
Undergraduates of Lagos State University, Abiodun and Juliana (2020:190-191)
identified six phonological processes including assimilation, substitution, hypercorrection,
spelling pronunciation, under differentiation, and epenthesis, and so on. Each process
serves to describe how phonemes are altered or interact in particular phonological
environments. Atolagbe (2000) describes assimilation as a process in which the ending of
one word or speech sound is modified by being adapted to the beginning of the next word
or a speech sound, and this beginning is also modified by being adapted to that ending. On
the other hand, he describes substitution as a linguistic situation where a speaker replaces
a sound which is absent in his/her sound system with a sound that is available.

Phonological rules are instructions that pertain to the abstract cognitive processes that
regulate sound patterns within a language. These rules are typically formalized using
generative phonology, where an underlying abstract representation undergoes
transformations to yield surface forms (Chomsky & Halle, 1968). These transformations
are rule-based and interact in specific ways, leading to questions about rule ordering and
the structure of phonological representations (Goldsmith, 1990).

2.2 Rule formalization and Rule Ordering

Rule formalization is the systematic representation of the phonological processes. It

provides a structured means to understand the transformation of underlying
representations (UR) into surface forms (SF). In other words, rule formalization refers to
the articulation of phonological processes using explicit, rule-based representations. These
rules capture systematic transformations that map underlying phonological representations
to surface forms. The quest for rule formalization was instigated by the need to summarise
phonological rules through the use of special formal notations to help make the rules more
succinct and easy to comprehend.

On the other hand, rule ordering refers to the sequence in which phonological rules are
applied to an underlying representation to yield surface forms. This sequence is crucial
because the order of application often determines the outcome of sound transformations,
and incorrect ordering can lead to overgeneration of forms that are not phonologically
feasible. On rule ordering, Amos and Olubimpe (2020:174) noted that:
“The rule-controlled usage of English is logically valid in so
far as the written form is concerned. Overgeneralization of
these rules is, however, noticed in the spoken English of
non-native speakers, including Nigerians. Generally, it is
required of the users of a language to identify some contexts
where clashes occur among rules, thus resulting in
superimposition of one rule over the other in order to
 arrange them in order of preferences. This phenomenon is
often denoted in the linguistic literature as rule ordering
principles [following the proposition of Katamba, 1996;
Awonusi, Ademola-Adeoye and Adewdeji, 2015).

Chomsky and Halle (1968: 341, cited in Amos and Olubimpe, 2020:175) say that “rules
are applied in a linear order, each rule operating on the string as modified by all earlier
applicable rules”. The linguistic concepts defining this rule interaction are technically
described as “rule feeding order and rule bleeding order. The notions of feeding and
bleeding, according to Mascarό (2011), were introduced by Kiparsky (1968) to explain
the direction of linguistic change. In projecting this concept, Mascarό (2011:19) explicates
it thus:
Rule A is in bleeding relation with respect to B (or A p-
bleeds B) if there is a possible input I such that B can apply
to I, A can apply to I, an B cannot apply to the result of
applying A to I.

Rule formalization is significant because it provides a precise and systematic way of

representing phonological processes; enhances our understanding by enabling the
prediction and description of sound alternations and by facilitating cross-linguistic
comparisons; and helps account for the complexity and regularity of phonological
systems, offering valuable insights into both the structure of English and phonology in
general.

2.3 Types of Phonological Processes

Phonological processes are sound modifications motivated by the need to maintain
euphony in a language or to rectify violations of well-formedness constraints in the
production of an utterance (Oyebade, 2008:62). Some of the phonological processes are
assimilation, deletion, insertion, liaison, coarticulation and so on.
1. Assimilation: As a result of phonetic cohabitation, contiguous phonemes exercise
some sort of influence on each other which causes a sound to change from its original
form. Oyebade (2008:62) submits that assimilation takes place when two contiguous
sounds which have different modes of production become identical in some or all of
their productions. There are three main types of phoneme assimilation as identified by
Gimson (2001:281). They are:
(i) Progressive or preservative assimilation
(ii) Regressive or anticipatory assimilation
(iii) Coalescent assimilation

According to Gimson (2001:281), preservative or progressive assimilation is an

assimilation process where "one phoneme markedly influences the following phoneme".
For example, arm + s = /a:mz/. Here, it is the second segment, that is the /s/ sound that
becomes assimilated. Since /m/ is a voiced phoneme, it uses its voiced state to influence
the next phoneme to it. Anticipatory or regressive assimilation can be described as a
situation in which "features of one phoneme are anticipated in the articulation of the
preceding phoneme". For example, Ten mice /ten mais/ becomes /tem mais/. The /n/
sounds assimilates to [m] before the /m/ sound. Lastly, coalescent assimilation occurs
when "a fusion of forms takes place". This process causes a sound to change by merging
two contiguous phonemes into another phoneme different from the two coalesced
sounds. This is mostly observed in contexts where the alveolar consonants /t, d, s, z/ are
followed by the palatal glide /j/. For example, did you /did ju/ [diʤu] the /d/ and /j/
sounds coalesce to form [ʤ]. Likewise, lose you /lu:z ju/ can become /lu:ʒu/.
2. Deletion: This term is often used interchangeably with elision. Deletion has to do
with the disappearance of one or more sounds in rapid speech. Jones (1972:230) defines
deletion/elision as "the disappearance of a sound". He observes two types of elision:
historical and contextual. Contextual elision has to do with a situation in which a sound,
which exists in a word in isolation, is dropped in rapid or connected speech. The two
types of deletion are: Vowel Deletion and Consonant Deletion
Vowel deletion: this is specially termed elision. An example, according to Roach
(1991), is where we have a weak vowel + /n/, /l/ or /r/, it becomes syllabic consonants
Tonight [t'nait] Police ['pli:s] Correct ['krekt]
Other examples are: family /fæmili/ becomes /fæmli/; I am /ai æm/ becomes /aim/
Consonant deletion: this usually happens when attempts are made at avoiding complex
consonant clusters or simplification of clusters (Jones, 2003: xv), especially involving
the loss of the alveolars /t, d/ when in combination with other consonants. For example,
'act + badly ' = /æktbædli/ (careful speech) becomes /ækbadli/ (rapid/casual speech).
Other examples are: last night /læst nait/ becomes /læs nait/; next week /nekst wi:k/
becomes /neks wi:k/
3. Insertion: “Insertion is a phonological process whereby an extraneous element which
is not originally present is introduced into the utterance in order to break up unwanted
sequences” (Oyebade, 2008:74). More common in English language is the insertion of a
vowel between a consonant cluster, whereas the insertion of consonant is not a common
occurrence.
4. Epenthesis: This is a situation in which a speaker inserts a redundant (that is an
additional sound that is unnecessary, because it adds nothing to the information
contained in the other sounds) sound in a sequence of phonemes. It happens most often
when a word of one language is adopted into another language whose rules of
phonotactics do not allow a particular sequence of sounds, or when a speaker is speaking
a foreign language which is phonotactically different.
For example, ‘French’ which is phonemically realised as /frenʃ/ is pronounced as /frenʧ/.

2.4 Phonological Rules

 1. Aspiration: it is a slight puff of breath resembling a [h] sound added to a phoneme. It
occurs in voiceless stops /p/, /t/, /k/ as ruled out under the following phonological rule:

-voiced
+plosive
+bilabial ASPIRATED/in # stressed syllables
+alveolar
+velar

2. Nasalization: Nasalization occurs in a vowel or a diphthong before a nasal; it is also

called regressive assimilation as the nasal influences the previous vowel to become
nasalized. The rule can be illustrated below:
+vowel +nasal
+diphthong NASALIZED/ +bilabial +alveolar
+velar

3. Vowel lengthening: Vowel lengthening occurs in a vowel or diphthong being

pronounced longer before a voiced consonant (this is also another form of regressive
assimilation) under the following rule:

+vowel +voiced
+diphthong LENGTHENED/ +consonant

4. Regressive assimilation with fixed spelling: People may not be aware of the fact that
the words ‘impossible’. ‘irregular’, ‘illogical’, ‘imbalance’, ‘incongruent’ actually have
the same underlying form of prefix {in-} which can be ruled out as follows

+nasal +nasal +nasal

+alveolar +bilabial +alveolar

+lateral +lateral

+stop
+nasal +velar
+velar -voiced

2.5 Application of the Phonological Rules Outlined by Describing the

Phonological Processes
Rule 1: Aspiration: The aspiration rule that has been outlined above representing the
underlying form of the rule can be worded as “voiceless stops /p/, /t/ and /k/ are aspirated
in word initially and in initially stressed syllables.”
For example:
‘pipe [p(h)aIp] apparent [’p(h)ǽrnt]
‘temporal [t(h)Emprl] accountable [’k(h)auntbl]
‘keep [k(h)i:p] attorney [’t(h):nI]
‘time [t(h)aIm]
The phoneme /p/ in the word ‘pipe’ is aspirated to become its allophonic form. [p(h)]as
it occurs initially, meanwhile the /p/ is not aspirated in its final position [p] as in the
words ‘pipe’ and ‘keep’. Similarly, the [po] in ‘temporal’ and the [ta] in ‘accountable’
are not aspirated because they are not stressed syllables.
The/p/ in the word ‘apparent’ is aspirated because it occurs in a stressed
syllable. This aspiration rule also applies in /k/ in the word ‘accountable’ and /t/ in the
word ‘attorney’. Thus the allophonic forms of aspiration occurring in /p/, /t/, /k/ are
phonologically conditioned, that is, in stressed syllables. They become phonetically
[p(h)], [t(h)] and [k(h)].

Rule 2: Nasalization
The nasalization rule can be reworded as “all vowels and diphthongs are nasalized
before a nasal.” Compare the following lists of words
1 2
1
game[geɪ(n)m] gate[geɪt]
song[so(n) ɳ] log[log]
him[hɪ(n)m] hit[hɪt]

The diphthong and vowels in the list 1 [ei], [o], [i]) are nasalized because of the
regressive assimilation (influenced) by the next nasals (-m, -ng, and –m). The diphthong
[eɪ] for example is nasalized due to the influence of the nasal [m] that follows. Similarly,
the vowels [o] and [i] are nasalized due to the influence of the nasal [-ng] and [m]
respectively. Meanwhile, the diphthong and vowels in the list 2 [eɪ], [o], and [i] are
normally pronounced or not nasalized because they are not followed by any nasal.
Rule 3: Vowel lengthening: The rule for vowel lengthening stated earlier can be
reworded as “all vowels or diphthongs are pronounced longer when followed by a voiced
consonant.” For instance,
1 2
2
Bead [bi:(.)d] beat [bi:t]
hid [hɪ(.)d] hit [hɪt]
bed [be(.)d)] bet [bet]
bide [baɪ(.)d] bite [baɪt]

The vowels and diphthong in the list 1 [i:],[ɪ], [e] and [aɪ] are pronounced longer
 because of the regressive assimilation (influenced) by the next consonant[-d] (which
is voiced) than the vowels and diphthong in the list 2 [i:], [ɪ], [e] and [aɪ] as they are
followed by [-t], which is a voiceless consonant. Thus, a vowel or diphthong is, by
vowel lengthening rules, pronounced longer when followed by a voiced sound than
when followed by a voiceless sound.
Underlying and Surface Forms for Four English Words
Underlying Form Rule Surface Form Written Form
/paɪp/ Aspirated [p(h)aɪp] pipe
/tɪn/ Nasalization [tɪ(n)n] tin
/saɪd/ Length [sai(.)d] side

3.0 Rule Formalisation Phenomenon

In order to formalise a rule, a phoneme has to be described using the distinctive feature
matrix. So, that brings us to the concept of Distinctive Features.
3.1 Distinctive Features
The word "distinct" means that something is clearly different. Also, the word "distinctive"
means that an element has the quality or characteristic that makes one thing different from
the other or others. The distinctive feature analysis was started by Roman Jakobson. It is an
offshoot of the generative phonology theory. Durand (1992:72) refers to this as binarism.
Distinctive feature analysis is based on the principle that phonemes should be regarded not
as independent and invisible units, but instead as combinations of different features. The
whole idea is to clearly characterise the phoneme of a speech sound, and how it can best be
described by the total elements that make it distinct or distinctively different from the other
phonemes. The distinctive feature theory uses the various features that are said to be present
or absent in a sound when contrasted with another sound. For instance, it describes if the
tongue at the production of the phoneme is: high, low, retracted (back), anterior, posterior,
tip or flap. At the acoustic level, the theory also lays emphasis on the modes of the
generation of the waves of air that makes up each phoneme from the lungs to the larynx,
and the minute details of the movements of the vocal cords.
Jakobson has emphasized that the distinctive features are to capture the
phonological contrasts of languages. Chomsky and Halle (1968) have pointed out two
principal functions of the distinctive features to include the need to capture phonological
contrasts of languages on the one hand, and the need to describe the phonetic components of
contents specified by phonological rules as well as underlying segments.

3.1.1 The Three Cardinals of Distinctive Features

(i) Phonetic specifiability: every feature must have identifiable phonetic correlates. In
other words, any identified phonetic feature must be specifiable in terms of phonetics -
articulatory, acoustic and auditory
(ii) Universality and completeness: To do business with all languages, the features must
be complete and universal.
(iii) Binarity principle: There are only two values, that is the feature is either present or
absent, there is no third possibility.

3.1.2 Divisions of the Distinctive Features

Chomsky and Halle (1968) in their book, Sound Pattern of English drew out the most
generally acceptable standard for classifying sounds of languages. The classification
includes the following:
(i) The major class features (ii) The cavity features
(iii) Lip-attitude (iv) Length of stricture
(v) The secondary aperture features (vi) The manner of articulation features
(vii) Source features (viii) Airstream mechanisms

i. The major class features: the concept of universality is applicable here. The major
class features are the features used in classifying sounds across all languages. They are
used to describe all human speech sound system. The major class features are:
 Sonorants/Non-sonorants (Obstruents): Sonorant sounds are the sounds
produced with a vocal tract configuration in which spontaneous voicing is
possible. On the contrary, Obstruents are produced with a construction sufficient
to generate intra-oral pressure which is greater than that of the surrounding air.
Sounds formed with more radical constrictions than the glides, that is, plosives,
fricatives, and affricates are obstruents while vowels, nasals, liquids and semi-
vowels are sonorants.
 Syllabic/Non-Syllabic: Syllabic sounds are sounds that can constitute syllabic
peaks. Non syllabic sounds are sounds which are in the margins of syllables.
Syllabic sounds include vowels, syllabic liquids and syllabic nasals.
 Consonantal/Non Consonantal: Consonantal sounds are sounds produced with a
radical obstruction of the airstream in the midsagittal region (vocal cavity). Non-
consonantal sounds are produced without such a constriction. [+cons] includes
obstruents (plosives, fricatives and affricates), nasals, liquids. [-cons] includes
vowels and glides (which is a category made up of the semi-vowel and the glottal
sounds).

ii. The cavity feature: This includes primary strictures and tongue-body features
 Primary strictures: This includes coronal/non-coronal and anterior/non-anterior
(posterior).
 Coronal sounds are sounds produced with the blade of the tongue raised from
its neutral position; non coronal sounds are produced with the blade of the
tongue in the neutral position. [+cor] includes dental, alveolar, palato-alveolar
sounds while [-cor] includes labials, velars, uvulars and pharyngeals.
 Anterior sounds are sounds produced with an obstruction that is located in
front of the palato-alveolar region of the mouth; non anterior sounds are
produced without such an obstruction. [+ant] include alveolars, dentals,
 labials; while [-ant] includes palato-alveolars, palatals, velars

 Body of the tongue features: Here, we have the High, Low, and Back
classifications
 High/non-high [+/- high]: High sounds are sounds produced by raising the
body of the tongue towards the roof of the mouth or above its neutral position.
Non-high sounds are produced without raising the body of the tongue towards
the roof of the mouth. [+] high includes vowels, palatals and velars.
 Low/non-low [+/-low]: low sounds are produced by lowering of the body of
the tongue below the level that it occupies in the neutral position; non low
sounds are produced without such a lowering of the body of the tongue.
[+low] includes open vowels and half-open vowels.
 Back/non-back [+/- back]: back sounds are produced by retracting the body of
the tongue towards the back wall of the pharynx or from its neutral position.
Non-back sounds are produced without retracting the body of the tongue
towards the back wall of the pharynx.

iii. Lip-attitude
 Rounded/non-rounded: Rounded sounds are produced with a narrowing of the
lip orifice. Non rounded sounds are produced without such a narrowing. They are
sounds produced when the lips assume a spread or neutral position. [+round]
includes rounded vowels and labialised consonants.
 Labial/non-labial: Labial sounds are formed with a constriction at the lips, while
non-labial sounds are without a constriction at the lips. [+ lab] includes labial
consonants and rounded vowels, while [-lab] includes all other sounds.

iv. Length of stricture

 Distributed/non-distributed [+/-distr]: Distributed sounds are produced with a
constriction that extends for a considerate distance along the direction of the air
flow; non distributed sounds are produced with a constriction that extends only for
a short distance in this direction. It is a feature which helps in distinguishing
dentals/alveolars and bilabials/labio-dentals. [+distr] includes sounds produced
with the blade of the tongue like alveolars and bilabials, while [-distr] includes
sounds produced with the tip of the tongue like dentals and labio-dentals.
 Covered/Non Covered: in many West African languages, there is vowel harmony
in terms of a feature that has been variously described as "tenseness" (Ladfoged,
1964), "heightening" (Welmers, 1946), "brightness" (Sapir, 1931).

v. The Secondary Aperture Feature: This includes nasals and lateral

 Nasals/oral [+/-nasal]: Nasal sounds are produced by lowering the velum and
allowing air to pass outward through the nose, that is by allowing a stream of air to
escape through the nasal cavity. Oral sounds are produced with the velum raised to
 prevent the passage of air through the nose. [+nasal] includes nasal stops, nazalised
consonants, vowels and glides [-nasal] includes others
 Lateral/central [+/-lat]: Lateral sounds are sounds produced when the stream of
air is prevented from passing through the centre of the mouth, but only escapes
through one or both sides of the tongue. [+lat] includes lateral sonorants, fricatives
and affricates. [-lat] includes all other sounds.

vi. The manner of articulation features: This category includes continuant, delayed
release and tense.
 Continuants/stop [+/-cont]: Continuants are sounds produced with a primary
constriction which allows the air to flow through the midsagittal region of the
vocal tract. They are sounds produced with the continuous escape of air from the
oral cavity. On the other hand, stops are sounds produced with a sustained
occlusion. [+cont] includes vowels, glides, r-sounds and fricatives, while [-cont]
includes oral stops and laterals.
 Delayed/instantaneous release [+/-delrel]: Delayed release takes place in a
situation where there is a blockage followed by a gradual release in the production
of sounds, as we have in the production of affricates. During the delayed release,
turbulence is generated in the vocal tract. On the other hand, instantaneous release
is normally accompanied by much or no turbulence. [+del/rel] includes affricates,
while [-delrel] includes stops/fricatives.

 Tense/lax [+/-tense]: Tense sounds are sounds produced with a great muscular
tension. They are produced with a greater amount deformation of the vocal tract
away from its neutral, rest position. The tongue-body configuration of tense sounds
involves a greater degree of constriction than what is found in lax. It is often
accompanied by greater length. The tense vowels in English are the long vowels.
[+tense] includes long vowels, voiceless plosives.

vii. Source features: This includes voicing and phonation types, and stridency. For this
context, emphasis will be placed on the Voicing.
Voiced/voiceless [+/- voiced]: Voiced sounds are produced when the vocal cords
vibrate. Voiceless sounds are produced with a glottal opening so wide that it will
prevent vocal vibration if air flows through it. The production of voiceless sounds
does not bring about vocal cords vibration. [+voiced] includes voiced consonants
and all vowels. [-voiced] includes voiceless consonants

Here’s a description of the English sound /s/ using the distinctive feature.
+ consonantal
/s/ - posterior
+ strident
+ coronal
 3.2 Notations Used in Rule Formalisation
Subscript- number C₀= means none or more consonants
# = word boundary
|| = phrase boundary/pause
+ = morpheme boundary
Ø = can be used for insertion or deletion
α = expresses the notion ''has the same value or agree in value with''
β = express additional agreement in additional value

Brace notation C C
V [+nasal] ____ +nasal #

Parenthesis notation v
V [+stress] - C̥ #

tion of segment (s) undergoing the change

Minimal specification of left-hand context
Minimal specification of right-hand context
[features that change]

Example
The deletion of /b/ in words like ‘comb’, ‘plumb’ can be formalised thus:

+cons +cons
+voice Ø +voice
+bilabial +bilabial
+plosive +nasal
For example, the rule of flapping in English, where /t/ and /d/ become the flap \[ɾ] in
environments like better \[ˈbɛɾər], has the formalized rule as:

/t/ or /d/ → \[ɾ] / \_\_ \[+vowel, +stress]

The rule governing assimilation of nasals to the place of the following consonant can be
formalized as follows:

/n/ → \[m] / \_\_ \[+bilabial]

/n/ → \[ŋ] / \_\_ \[+velar]

The rule of vowel reduction where English vowels often reduce to a schwa \[ə], can be
formally described as:

/ʌ/ → \[ə] / \_\_ \[-stress]

⎧+C⎫

Devoicing [obstr] → [–voiced] / __ ⎨ ⎬

⎩# ⎭

g-deletion g → Ø / [+nasal] __

Vowel Elision: V → Ø / V_ (*VV Max-V) (using constraint ranking)

Palatalization: /s/ → [S] / i(C)_ (*i(C)s Ident[anterior])

3.3 Elements in Formal Rule Representations

In a formal rule representation (as culled from ENG 302 UI DLC) are as follows:
1. Segments expressed in distinctive features to the left of the right arrow is the
underlying representation.
2. The arrow expresses the direction of the change.
3. The segments expressed in features to the right of the arrow is the change or the surface
realization.
4. The diagonal bar/slash separates the environment from the rest of the rule.
5. The dash after or before the conditioning factor expresses the point or position in which
the change took place.
6. The feature specifications before or after the dash line indicates the conditioning
environment.

3.4 Rule Ordering

A rule expresses a significant generalization about the sound structure of a given natural
language. Rule ordering refers to the specific sequence in which phonological rules apply
in a derivational grammar. It was, in early generative phonology, especially as introduced
in Sound Pattern of English (Chomsky & Halle, 1968), recognized that the ordering of
rules is not arbitrary, but systematically determines the surface realization of phonological
forms. Amos and Olubimpe (2020:175) suggest that:

“harmony is in the application of phonological rules based

on the fact that rules are not meant to be recklessly applied
everywhere their structural descriptions are met.
Articulatory discords stemming from competing rules in
different phonetic environments are expected to be resolved
through linear ordering as specified by the generative
phonology theory. Rule ordering sometimes creates
environment for rules that have no structural basis in the
phonological components of a text to emerge. On the other
hand, it may also eliminate the potentials for application of
rules that have obvious structural description in the lexical
entries of a text and thus block its applicability”.

3.4.1 Rule Ordering Interaction

In a system of ordered rules, rules can interact: both the applicability and the result of
application of a rule can depend on the application of previous rules. The notions of
feeding and bleeding relations were introduced in 1968 by Kiparsky in order to explain
the direction of linguistic change. There are four main types of rule ordering interactions:

1. Feeding: A feeding relationship occurs when the application of one rule creates the
environment required for the application of a subsequent rule.
2. Counter-feeding: Counterfeeding refers to a situation in which Rule A would have
fed Rule B, but it is ordered after Rule B and thus does not create the context in
time. This results in underapplication of Rule B.
3. Bleeding: Bleeding occurs when the application of the first rule removes the
environment in which the second rule could have applied; thereby, preventing its
execution. In this type of ordering, Rule A “bleeds” Rule B. Cited in Amos and
Olubimpe (2020:176), Chomsky and Halle (1968:343) submit that: “under well-
defined circumstances, rule ordering is ‘disjunctive’, in the sense that the
application of certain rules precludes the application of certain others”. So, when a
rule (phonological or syntactic) that is legitimate in a given environment is
prevented from applying due to the occurrence of another rule, the condition
created , irrespective of the linguistic levels involved, can be technically accounted
for as rule bleeding (Amos & Olubimpe, 2020:177)
 4. Counter-bleeding: Counterbleeding occurs when Rule A, which would have
removed the context for Rule B, is applied after Rule B, allowing Rule B to apply
as if unimpeded. These opaque orderings lead to surface representations that do
not transparently reflect the underlying rule interactions (Kiparsky, 1973).

According to Mascarό (2011:19), feeding and bleeding relations can be formally

defined as follows

Rule A is in feeding relation with B (or A p-feeds B) if there is a possible input I such that
B cannot apply to I, A can apply to I, and B can apply to the result of applying A to I.

Rule A is in bleeding relation with B (or A p-bleeds B) if there is a possible input I such
that B can apply to I, A can apply to I, and B cannot apply to the result of applying A to I.

A yet simplified approach to defining the interaction of the rules is given below:

Feeding:

• Rule A creates the input or environment for the application of Rule B, and

• Rule A is ordered before Rule B, so

→ Rule B successfully applies to the output of Rule A.

• The flip side of feeding is: If Rule A feeds Rule B, but you reverse the order, you get a
counter-feeding interaction:

Counter-feeding:

• Rule A creates the input or environment for the application of Rule B, but

• Rule B is ordered before Rule A, so

→ Rule B never gets the chance to apply to the output of Rule A.

• These can be schematized as follows:

Feeding order (Rule A bef. Rule B)

UR /WXYZ/

Rule A: X → A / W_Y WAYZ

Rule B: Y → B / A_Z WABZ

SR [WABZ]

Counter-feeding order (Rule B bef. Rule A)

UR /WXYZ/

Rule B: Y → B / A_Z -------

Rule A: X → A / W_Y WAYZ

SR [WAYZ]

Bleeding:

• Rule A destroys the input or environment for the application of Rule B, and

• Rule A is ordered before Rule B, so

→ Rule B cannot apply to the output of Rule A (even though it would have applied if
Rule A hadn't).

• The flip side of bleeding is: If Rule A bleeds Rule B, but you reverse the order, you get a
counter-feeding interaction:

Counter-bleeding:

• Rule A destroys the input or environment for the application of Rule B, but

• Rule B is ordered before Rule A, so

→ Rule B successfully applies before Rule A can destroy its input or environment.

• These can be schematized as follows:

Bleeding order (Rule A bef. Rule B)

UR /XYZ/

Rule A: Z → A / _# XYA

Rule B: Y → B / X_Z ------

SR [XYA]

Counter-bleeding order (Rule B bef. Rule A)

UR /XYZ/

Rule B: Y → B / X_Z XBZ

Rule A: Z → A / _# XBA

SR [XBA]

3.4.2 Importance of Rule Ordering in Phonology

Rule ordering affects the phonological reality. This is to say that, when multiple
phonological rules interact, the sequence in which they apply can significantly affect the
final outcome. For instance, if one rule creates an environment for another to apply,
changing the order could result in a different, often incorrect, form.

It reveals the internal logic and structure of a language’s phonology, allowing linguists to
model how speakers systematically produce forms based on deep structures, in order to
highlight the underlying regularities in seemingly irregular forms.

It also helps account for different types of rule interactions, such as:

 Feeding: Rule A creates the environment for Rule B

 Bleeding: Rule A destroys the environment for Rule B
 Counterfeeding: Rule B would have applied if Rule A had applied earlier
 Counterbleeding: Rule A would have prevented Rule B if it had applied first

3.5 Theoretical Frameworks and Their Impact on Rule Formalization

and Ordering

3.5.1 Generative Phonology

The linguistic principle of rule ordering was introduced in generative phonology to

address the problem of complexities in rule interaction in connected speech (Amos &
Olumide, 2020:175). In generative phonology, particularly in the work of Chomsky and
Halle (1968), rule formalization and ordering were key components in understanding the
derivation of surface forms. Rules were seen as transformations that map underlying
forms to surface realizations, with an essential focus on the correct sequencing of rules.

Chomsky and Halle (1968) formalized phonological processes as rule-driven derivations,

where a set of abstract rules governs the alternation of sounds in different environments.
Rule formalization plays a central role in explaining how underlying representations (UR)
are mapped to surface forms (SF) via transformations. The term rule is a common place
among the generative phonologists.

The basic premise of Generative Phonology Theory (which subsumes the

Transformational Generative Phonological Approach or Distinctive Feature Approach) is
that phonological structure reflects the linguistic competence of the individual native
speaker, and the goal of the theory is to express a link between sound and meaning. It also
accounts for some language phenomenon like linguistic intuition, foreign account, speech
error, and so on. Lastly, this theory identifies alternations, phonological process behind
the alternations and formalization of rules.

3.5.2 Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993) marked a departure from traditional rule
ordering by positing that phonological forms arise from the interaction of universal
constraints. In this model, surface forms emerge from constraint satisfaction rather than a
fixed sequence of rules. Constraints such as “Faithfulness” (preserving underlying
features) and “Markedness” (preferring simpler, more natural forms) interact to generate
optimal outputs. Although OT eliminates the need for strict rule ordering, it still requires a
deep understanding of constraint rankings and their application to generate the correct
sound patterns in English (McCarthy & Prince, 1995).

3.5.3 Usage-Based Approaches

Usage-based approaches to phonology, such as those proposed by Bybee (2001),

emphasize the role of frequency and usage patterns in shaping phonological structures. In
this framework, rule formalization and ordering are viewed as emergent from language
use, rather than being governed by universal principles. This perspective challenges
traditional views by suggesting that sound patterns in English (and other languages) may
be better understood through empirical observation and statistical modeling, rather than
abstract theoretical rules.

3.5.4 The Evolution of Rule Ordering: From Generative Phonology to

Optimality Theory

The development of Optimality Theory (OT) by Prince and Smolensky (1993) marks a
paradigmatic shift away from traditional rule-based models and their reliance on explicit
rule ordering. OT posits that surface forms emerge from the interaction of universal
constraints (both markedness and faithfulness) ranked in a language-specific manner. In
this framework, surface forms are derived not through a sequence of rules, but by
selecting the most optimal candidate that best satisfies the ranked constraints.

Unlike rule-based models, OT rejects the concept of derivational ordering in favor of

constraint ranking. In OT, there is no need for a rigid sequence of rule applications.
Instead, surface forms result from the simultaneous evaluation of all possible candidates,
with constraints determining the most optimal structure. For instance, if a candidate
violates a high-ranked faithfulness constraint, it will be considered suboptimal, even if it
satisfies a lower-ranked markedness constraint. This is a departure from rule ordering,
where processes were traditionally sequenced to avoid rule conflict.

Though OT does not rely on rule ordering, the ranking of constraints can be thought of as
serving a similar function. The ranking of constraints determines which phonological
processes are prioritized in the derivation, thus influencing the resulting surface forms.
For instance, a language may rank Nasalization higher than Palatalization, leading to
nasality being applied before palatal processes in case of conflict. While this is not the
same as sequential rule ordering, the ranked constraints still provide a mechanism for
determining which phonological patterns are realized.

3.6 Rules and Constraints

• Phonological processes and (static) phonological generalizations can be expressed using
rules: (1) Rule notations
a. /X/ → [Y] / A B “X becomes Y in the context of a preceding A and a
following B”
b. b. /AXB/ → [AYB] “The string AXB becomes the string AYB|”

• The processes and phonological generalisations can also be expressed using constraints:
(2) Converting rules to constraints
/AXB/ → [AYB] ≈ Markedness: *AXB Faithfulness: *X→Y (Faith[X])

3.7 Implications of Rule Formalisation and Rule Ordering for

Phonological Theory

Phonological theory seeks to elucidate the cognitive and structural principles governing
sound patterns across languages.
Rule formalization helps to identify universal phonological processes that span across
languages, through which linguists can systematize cross-linguistic sound patterns and
identify generalizations that hold across languages. Also, the formalization of
phonological rules also has important implications for understanding the cognitive
mechanisms behind phonological processing.
In the case of rule ordering, it provides valuable insights into the structure and
organization of phonological systems which helps phonologists to uncover the underlying
principles that govern sound alternations, vowel harmony, and other complex
phonological processes in language. Additionally, it is vital for understanding the
interaction between phonotactic constraints and phonological processes. Phonotactic
constraints regulate the permissible combinations of sounds in a language, determining
what constitutes a well-formed word. Rule ordering ensures that phonological processes
respect these constraints during the derivation of surface forms.

Summarily, the theoretical insights gained from the formalization of rules and the
ordering of those rules extend beyond linguistic theory into cognitive science and
computational linguistics. In both fields, understanding how phonological processes
operate within a language has direct implications for speech processing, language
acquisition, and speech synthesis.

4.0 Case Studies on Analysis of Rule Ordering in Specific Languages

Case studies on rule formalization and ordering in specific languages often explore how
linguistic rules are structured and applied, focusing on phenomena like rule interactions
(feeding and bleeding), and the ordering of rules within a grammar. These studies analyze
how underlying forms are transformed into surface forms through ordered rules,
examining the implications of different ordering strategies on language description and
acquisition.

Examples from Various Language Families

Case 1: English (Germanic Language Family)

Example: Plural formation and voicing assimilation

Rule A: /s/ → [z] after a voiced segment (Voicing Assimilation – Rule 1)
Rule B: Add plural /-s/ suffix to nouns (Pluralization – Rule 2)
Ordering: Rule 2 (Pluralization) feeds Rule 1 (Voicing assimilation)
Outcome: /dog/ + /s/ → /dogz/
Rule Type: Feeding relationship
Framework Used: Derivational approach (SPE)

Case 2: Yoruba (Niger-Congo Language Family)

Example: Vowel elision and tone rules
Rule A: High tone spreads rightward
Rule B: Vowel elision deletes adjacent vowels at morpheme boundaries
Ordering: Tone spreading must apply before vowel elision for surface tones to appear
correctly.
Rule Type: Counter-bleeding
Framework Used: Both SPE and autosegmental representations

Case 3: Japanese (Japonic Language Family)

Example: Rendaku (sequential voicing)

Rule A: Voicing of initial consonant in second element of compound
Rule B: Lyman's Law (blocks voicing if the second morpheme contains another voiced
obstruent)
Ordering Pattern: Rule A is blocked by Rule B – Bleeding relationship
Framework Used: Constraint-based explanation under Optimality Theory

Case 4: Russian (Slavic Language Family)

Example: Final devoicing and voicing assimilation

Rule A: Voicing assimilation in clusters
Rule B: Final obstruents become voiceless
Ordering: If devoicing applies after assimilation → counter-feeding
Illustration: /pragda/ → /prakta/
Rule Type: Counter-feeding
Framework: Derivational model

Case 5: Arabic (Afro-Asiatic Language Family)

Example: Epenthesis and syllable structure constraints

Rule A: Insert epenthetic vowel to break up illegal clusters
Rule B: Deletion of certain vowels in unstressed syllables
Ordering: Epenthesis must occur before vowel deletion to maintain syllable structure
Rule Type: Feeding
Model Used: OT and rule-based models both applies

Comparison of Rule Ordering Patterns Across Languages

Language Rule Type Ordering Pattern Theoretical

Model
English Feeding Plural → SPE (Derivational)
Assimilation
Yoruba Counter-bleeding Tone → Vowel Autosegmental/SPE
Elision
Japanese Bleeding Voicing Blocked Optimality Theory
 →No Voicing
Russian Counter-feeding Assimilation → Derivational
Devoicing
Arabic Feeding Epenthesis → OT / Rule-based
Deletion

Theoretical Models Employed

Derivational Theories (SPE):
 Rules apply sequentially and are ordered explicitly.
 Useful for identifying feeding, bleeding, counter-relationships
Constraint-based Models (Optimality Theory):
 Rules are replaced with constraints ranked in hierarchy.
 Output is derived from evaluating possible candidates.

Insights and Implications

Some languages prefer sequential derivation (SPE), while others are more compatible
with constraint-based modeling (OT).

4.1 The Bookish English Syndrome in Non-Native Settings: When Rule

Ordering is Neglected

Among second-language (L2) speakers of English, particularly within text-heavy

educational systems, the phenomenon of "bookish English" constitutes a notable stylistic
and phonological pattern. This term denotes the overuse of formal, archaic, or lexically
dense language, typically acquired through textual sources such as grammar books,
literature, or examination materials, rather than through authentic communicative
interaction (Schneider, 2007; Adegbija, 1994). While the lexical and syntactic features of
this variety have been widely observed, its phonological implications are equally salient.
L2 learners who are exposed predominantly to written English often internalise formalised
rules in a static, orthographically mediated manner, without acquiring the ordered,
interactional dynamics characteristic of native phonological competence. For instance, a
learner may pronounce soften as /ˈsɒftɛn/ rather than the native-like /ˈsɒfən/, indicating
failure to apply the rule of /t/-elision after syllabification and stress assignment. Such
errors suggest either misapplication of rules or inappropriate ordering within the
derivational sequence (Archibald, 1998; Roach, 2009)

Moreover, bookish English is frequently characterized by prosodic irregularities,

including unnatural stress patterns, monotonic intonation, and syllable-timed speech that
deviate from the stress-timed rhythm typical of spoken English (Roach, 2009). Such
patterns are often the result of hypercorrection or the emulation of prestige varieties such
as Received Pronunciation (RP), which are valorized in many postcolonial education
systems and language ideologies (Bamgbose, 1995; Kachru, 1986). Similarly, failure to
apply context-sensitive rules such as assimilation, resyllabification, or juncture-induced
linking results in hyperarticulated, stilted speech patterns that are phonologically accurate
in isolation but pragmatically unnatural in fluent discourse.

These deviations reflect not merely linguistic incompetence but the cognitive and
pedagogical imprint of rule formalisation without exposure to naturalistic rule ordering. In
many formal L2 instructional contexts, phonological instruction tends to prioritise
segmental articulation and spelling-pronunciation correspondence, thereby reinforcing
rigid, context-independent rule representations (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin,
2010). Consequently, learners develop a phonological grammar that is formally coherent
but derivationally unanchored—a grammar of rules without a grammar of application –
this re-ignites the discussion of linguistic competence versus communicative competence,
as Amos and Olumbimpe (2020:177) submit that “some speakers of English in non-native
settings like Nigeria usually seek to maintain strict adherence to grammatical accuracy at
the expense of articulatory ease.

5.0 Conclusion

Rule formalization as well as rule ordering are indispensable in the study of sound
patterns because, while the former provides a precise and systematic way of representing
phonological processes and enhances one’s understanding by enabling the prediction and
description of sound alternations, the latter, through mechanisms such as feeding,
bleeding, counterfeeding, and counterbleeding, can help linguists explain both transparent
and opaque interactions between rules, which are essential for understanding how
phonological processes work in tandem or in opposition to shape surface representations
from underlying forms. When rules are stated using special formal notations (not informal
expressions) succinctness is achieved and they become easier to understand, as brevity is
said to be the soul of wit.

Both Generative Phonology and Optimality Theory have made their marks in enhancing
the phenomenon of rule ordering. The latter helps us understand how structured rules and
their alternations help achieve articulatory competence and the latter does same through
the providing constraints (which are either faithful or marked). As has been seen from the
case studies presented in this paper, while some languages prefer to use the approach
provided by Generative Phonology, some other pitch their tent with constraint ranking in
Optimality Theory.
Lastly, the phenomenon of bookish English discussed briefly here revealed that speakers
of English in non-native settings, particularly in Nigeria are yet to fully come to the light
of alternations (which are central part of what native speakers know about their language).
Consequent upon this, rule ordering (whether in relationship to phonology, syntax and
morphology) should be carefully and systematically integrated into the academic terrains
to help achieve the level of proficiency being sought.

REFERENCES

Abiodun, J. & Juliana, J. 2020. Phonological analysis of the discourse of selected undergraduates
of Lagos State University. Phonetics, Phonology and Sociolinguistics in the Nigerian
Context: A festschrift for Adenike Akinjobi. Eds. Oladipupo, R., Akindelem, J. &
Osisanwo, A.

Adegbija, E. 1994. Language attitudes in sub-Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic overview.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Amos, A. & Olubimpe, A. 2020. Phonotactic rule ordering involving rule bleeding relationship
between phonological units and past tense allomorphs in Educated Yoruba English.
Phonetics, Phonology and Sociolinguistics in the Nigerian Context: A festschrift for
Adenike Akinjobi. Eds. Oladipupo, R., Akindelem, J. & Osisanwo, A.

Archangeli, D. and Pulleyblank, D. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press

Ayo Osisanwo. 2012. Fundamentals of English Phonetics and Phonology. Lagos: Femolus-Fetop
Publishers.

Bamgbose, A. 1995. English in the Nigerian environment. New Englishes: A West African
Perspective. Eds. Bamgbose, A., Banjo, A. & Thomas, A. Ibadan: Mosuro Publishers.
Chapter 1: 9–26.

Bamgbose, A. 1966. A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2011. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in
exponence. The morphology and phonology of exponence. Ed. J. Trommer.
Oxford: Oxford UP. Chapter: 8–83.

Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M. & Goodwin, J. M. 2010. Teaching pronunciation: A course

book and reference guide. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper &
Row.

Finegan, E. 1994. Language and its structure. New York: Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.

Goldsmith, J. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gussenhoven, C. and Jacobs, H. 2017. Understanding phonology. 4th ed. London:

Routledge.

Harris, J. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hayes, B. 2009. Introductory phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new
norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford [Link], K. 2005. Acoustic and auditory
phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kachru, B. B. 1986. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native
Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kager, R. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaisse, E. 1985. Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York:
Academic Press.

Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kenstowicz, M. and Kisseberth, C. 1979. Generative phonology: description and theory.

New York: Academic Press.

King, R. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall.

Kiparsky, P. 1973. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. Three dimensions of linguistic
theory. Ed. O. Fujimura. Tokyo: TEC. Chapter: 1–136.
Ladefoged, P. 2001. A course in phonetics. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lombardi, L. 2009. The phonology of distinctive features. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

McCarthy, J. J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16.3: 331–399.

McCarthy, J. J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in optimality theory.

London: Equinox.

McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and

satisfaction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive
Science.

Mellers, B. A. 2000. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological

Bulletin 126.3: 910–924.

Menn, L. and Vihman, M. M. 2011. The interaction of phonetic and phonological

processes in language change. The handbook of phonological theory. Eds. J. M.
Blevins and J. J. Garrett. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Chapter: 565–596.

Nittrouer, S. 1992. The role of coarticulation in speech perception. Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 91.5: 2396–2417.

Odden, D. 2005. Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Osisanwo, A. A. 2012. Fundamentals of English phonetics and phonology. Lagos:

Femolus-Fetop Publishers.

Penny, R. 2002. A history of the Spanish language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in

generative grammar. Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Raynor, J. 1999. Introduction to language, Course Book. Suva: The University of the
South Pacific.

Ramelan. 1985. English phonetics. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.

Roach, P. 1998. English phonetics and phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Roach, P. 2009. English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. 4th ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Schneider, E. W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.

Rubach, J. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17.3: 395–442.

Schneider, E. W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP.

Sims, S. 2014. The metathesis in English historical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 45.4:
575–604.

Subiyanto, A. 2010. Proses fonologis bahasa Jawa: kajian optimalitas. [Place of

publication not stated].

Tsujimura, N. 2014. An introduction to Japanese linguistics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell.