Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An inconclusive pilot study in Danish phonology gives rise to questions about testible differences between explanation by analogical algorithm versus rules. The literature on analogy shows its resistance to valid limitations on its operation in terms of markedness, similarity, or on the basis of purely conceptual or grammatical considerations. It is argued that being the less constrained mechanism, it is inferior as a working hypothesis to rules. It is suggested that the convincing instances of synchronic analogy are special cases where a speaker resorts to a more basic cognitive strategy as ill-defined and hence powerful as our ability to recognize similar aspects of nonidentical complexes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul Over (1977) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: