AN APOPHONE MAY BE DEFINED GENERALLY AS A POLYSYLLABIC VOWEL SEQUENCE SUCH THAT EACH CONTAINED VOWEL IS LOWER OR MORE RETRACTED THAN THE VOWEL WHICH PRECEDES IT --"SING, SANG, SUNG," AND "CLINK, CLANK, CLUNK" ARE EXAMPLES IN ENGLISH. FOR NEARLY EVERY CASE OF GRAMMATICAL APOPHONY IN ENGLISH THERE IS A NON-GRAMMATICAL (YET SEMANTICALLY SIGNIFICANT) ANALOG. THE AUTHOR AGREES WITH SWADESH THAT THERE ARE "PERSUASIVE REASONS" FOR REGARDING GRAMMATICAL APOPHONY AS A DERIVATIVE OF NON-GRAMMATICAL APOPHONY. THE LATTER MAY BE CLASSIFIED IN TERMS OF A NUMBER OF BINARY OPPOSITIONS--(1) DYADIC, "KITTY-CAT" VS. TRIADIC, "TIC-TAC-TOE," (2) ECHOIC, "RIFF-RAFF" VS. NON-ECHOIC, "WHIZ-BANG," (3) MICROPHONIC, "HIP, HEP" VS. MACROPHONIC, "TU-WHIT, TO-WHOO" AND (4) CANONICAL, "ZIGZAG" VS. NON-CANONICAL, "FRESHMAN, FROSH." EXCEPT WHERE IT INTERSECTS WITH THE GRAMMATICAL SYSTEM (SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF ENGLISH "STRONG VERBS") APOPHONY IS A RELATIVELY SELF-CONTAINED SYSTEM. MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT IT UTILIZES LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM VIRTUALLY ANY SOURCE SUGGESTS THAT IT IS ALSO A PRODUCTIVE RATHER THAN A FOSSILIZED SYSTEM. APOPHONY AND ECHOLALIA (IMITATIVE OR REPETITIVE SPEECH) MAY SEEM FUNCTIONALLY ANTITHETICAL SINCE APOPHONY DEPENDS ON ALTERATION OF SOUNDS, WHEREAS ECHOLALIA DEPENDS ON THEIR REPETITION. THE AUTHOR FEELS, HOWEVER, THAT THEY ARE MORE LIKE "THEME-AND-VARIATION IN MUSIC" AND THAT APOPHONY SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CASE OF ECHOLALIA. HE FURTHER NOTES THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S LANGUAGES, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE INDO-EUROPEAN GROUP, CONTAIN "SOUND-EFFECT WORDS" EXHIBITING WHAT HE TERMS "NORMAL APOPHONIC SEQUENCE." THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE LINGUISTIC CIRCLE OF NEW YORK, HELD IN NEW YORK CITY ON MARCH 9, 1968. (AMM)