Preface

The notion of “rule” has always been at the heart of grammatical theory. Within transformational grammar of the 1960s and 70s rules were thought of as transformations, mapping representations onto other representations in both phonology and syntax (Chomsky 1965, Chomsky and Halle 1968, Anderson 1969, 1974, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977, 1979, Williams 1974, Kayne 1975, Pullum 1979, Perlmutter and Soames 1979, amongmany others). It soon became clear that if the generation of a representation requires the application of more than one rule, then potential cases of rule interaction arise (Chomsky 1951). In order to describe interactions between rule applications, Kiparsky (1971, 1976) introduced a taxonomy of rule interaction that distinguishes transparent interactions (feeding, bleeding) and opaque ones (counter-feeding, counterbleeding). Feeding describes an interaction where the application of a rule R1 provides the context for the application of a rule R2. Bleeding, on the other hand, is an interaction where application of a rule R1 destroys the context for the application of a rule R2. Counter-feeding is a term for an interaction where the feeding relation that could, in principle, apply between two rules does not arise. On the surface, it looks like a rule did not apply although its context was created by the application of another rule. Similarly, counter-bleeding describes an interaction where a bleeding relation that could show up between two rules is not found on the surface: a rule applied although its context was destroyed by another rule. Extending and generalizing Kiparsky’s (1971, 1976) taxonomy, one may distinguish interactions that involve a sequential application of rules from interactions that involve parallel rule application; alongside with this, there is a distinction between interactions that come about by rules that strengthen/support one