English speakers say 'impossible,' 'incomplete,' and 'inhuman' rather than 'inpossible,' 'incomplete,' and 'inhuman' (with the same nasal). What does this pattern demonstrate about phonological rules?
AEnglish stores three separate underlying prefix morphemes that are selected based on the following consonant
BA single underlying representation /in-/ surfaces differently through a nasal assimilation rule that changes the nasal to match the place of articulation of the following consonant
CPhonological rules only apply to vowels; the variation in nasals is learned separately as vocabulary
DRules are universal, so this same pattern should apply identically in all languages
The prefix has one underlying representation /in-/. A nasal assimilation rule changes it: before bilabial /p/, the alveolar /n/ becomes bilabial [m] ('impossible'); before velar /k/, it becomes velar [ŋ] ('incomplete' → [ɪŋkəmpliːt]); before vowels and alveolars the underlying /n/ surfaces unchanged. The variation is not memorized entry by entry — it is derived from a single UR by a productive rule. Rules are language-specific, not universal.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Two phonological rules could apply to the same form. Rule A creates the phonological environment that Rule B needs in order to apply. What is this relationship called, and why does rule ordering matter?
ABleeding order — Rule A destroys the environment Rule B would have applied to, preventing B from applying
BFeeding order — Rule A creates an environment for Rule B, so applying A before B produces a different (and often more accurate) output than B before A
CCyclic order — both rules apply simultaneously in a single pass
DFree variation — when two rules could both apply, either ordering produces the same surface form
In feeding order, Rule A 'feeds' Rule B by creating the environment Rule B needs. If you apply B before A, B has no environment to apply to and produces the wrong output. This shows why rule ordering is not arbitrary: the derivation is a sequence, and the order determines what output is predicted. Bleeding order is the opposite — Rule A removes the environment Rule B would have used, so applying A first prevents B from applying.
Question 3 True / False
The same morpheme can have multiple surface pronunciations, all derived from a single underlying representation through the application of phonological rules.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is the central insight of derivational phonology. The English plural morpheme has one underlying representation /z/, which surfaces as [s] after voiceless consonants ('cats'), [z] after voiced consonants and vowels ('dogs'), and [ɪz] after sibilants ('buses'). The three pronunciations are not stored separately — they are predicted by rules. The UR/SR distinction explains why apparent pronunciation irregularity is actually systematic.
Question 4 True / False
Because a phonological rule specifies that sound A changes to B in a given context, the reverse rule (B → A in the same context) is also valid in that language.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Phonological rules are directional — A→B does not imply B→A. Rules specify one-way changes in defined contexts; the reverse rule would be a separate, independent rule that may or may not exist in the language. This is one of the most common misconceptions in phonology: confusing the asymmetry of rules with symmetry. Rule direction reflects specific articulatory or historical processes, not bidirectional relationships.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the difference between an underlying representation (UR) and a surface representation (SR), and why does this distinction matter for understanding phonological variation in natural languages?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The UR is the abstract stored form of a morpheme as it exists in the mental lexicon — what the morpheme looks like before any rules apply. The SR is what speakers actually pronounce in a specific phonological context, after all applicable rules have applied in order. The distinction matters because it explains why the same morpheme surfaces differently in different environments without requiring speakers to memorize every variant separately. Rules apply to the UR to derive the SR, and apparent pronunciation irregularity turns out to be predictable once you know the rules.
Without the UR/SR distinction, you would need to treat 'cats,' 'dogs,' and 'buses' as having three different plural morphemes — losing the insight that they are the same underlying morpheme in different environments. The framework reveals systematicity behind apparent variation, which is what makes it linguistically powerful. It also enables the formal testing of whether a proposed rule system correctly predicts the pronunciations speakers actually produce.