Bleeding order
relation between rules in linguistics
Bleeding order is a term used in phonology to describe specific interactions of phonological rules. The term was introduced in 1968 by Paul Kiparsky. If two phonological rules are said to be in bleeding order, the application of the first rule creates a context in which the second rule can no longer apply.
The opposite of this is called feeding order.
Examples
An example of this in English is the /ɪ/-insertion between a voiceless alveolar fricative and a plural-z, as in buses [bʌsɪz] (with the underlying representation //bʌs-z//). English also has a rule which devoices segments after voiceless consonants, as in books [bʊks], with the underlying representation //bʊk-z//). In the output form [bʌsɪz] buses, final devoicing has not applied, because the phonological context in which this rule could have applied has been destroyed by the application of /ɪ/-insertion. Put differently, the application order "(1) /ɪ/-insertion (2) final devoicing" is a bleeding order in English.
Counterbleeding order
If two rules which would have a bleeding relationship in one order actually apply in the opposite order, the latter is called a counterbleeding order. An example of this can be seen in the pronunciation of the diminutive of the word slang ("snake") in the Dutch dialect of Kaatsheuvel: [slɑŋəskə].
The public source identifies “Bleeding order” as relation between rules in linguistics. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Bleeding, order and relation.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Bleeding order”, the useful work is to connect “relation between rules in linguistics” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2018019. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1968.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Bleeding order”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Bleeding order primary sources, Bleeding order archive and Bleeding research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Bleeding order”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Bleeding order” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.