Abstract

This paper examines the claim made in Klausenburger (1974) that French liaison is an example of rule inversion. After a discussion of the arguments presented there, it is concluded that none of them offers very strong support for the analysis made on the basis of the liaison rule having been inverted. Additional data is presented, which together with the weakness of the original arguments, indicates that it is at least as likely that the rule in question has not been inverted. Some general discussion of arguments which are intended to choose between linguistic analyses is also given.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.