Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T07:55:41.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uralic and Altaic vowel harmony: a problem for natural generative phonology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Catherine O. Ringen
Catherine O. Ringen
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Hooper (1976: 5), the theory of natural generative phonology places the strongest possible constraints on abstractness in phonological descriptions. She claims that ‘the major advantage of natural generative theory over previous theories is that it gives a realistic representation of linguistic competence by constraining the theory to allow only a small subset of the grammars allowed by the unconstrained theory’ (xi). She claims further that the subset of grammars which are consistent with the constraints of natural generative phonology (NGP) accurately represent a speaker's knowledge of his language. This paper considers how vowel harmony rules in languages such as Turkish and Hungarian would be formulated in NGP. It is argued that the analyses required by NGP for these and similar vowel harmony languages do not represent the internalized knowledge of speakers of these languages and, therefore, that such vowel harmony systems provide strong evidence against NGP.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 37 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Campbell, L. (1977). The psychological and social reality of Finnish vowel harmony. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Vowel Harmony. To appear in Vago, R. (ed), Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: Benjamins. B.V.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Döllein, J. (ms.) Vowel harmony and psychological reality in generative phonology. Unpublished, undated ms., University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Foster, J. (1969). On some phonological rules of Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1978). Two theories of non-automatic morphological alternations. Lg 54. 41–60.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. (1979). Substantive principles in natural generative phonology. In Dinnsen, D. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1974). The representation of non-productive alternations. In Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (eds), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. Vol. 11, 203–229.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. & Ringen, C. (1977). On constraining the theory of exceptions. Proceedings of the 1976 Mid-America Conference, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 155–164.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
Lotz, J. (1972). Vowel harmony in Hungarian. In Gergely, J. et al. (eds), Mélanges offerts à Aurélien Sauvageot pour son soixanle – quinzième anniversaire. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Ringen, C. (1978a). Another view of the theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. Lln 9. 105–115.Google Scholar
Ringen, C. (1978b). A concrete analysis of Hungarian vowel harmony. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Vowel Harmony. To appear in Vago, R. (ed.), Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: Benjamins B. V.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (1975). Substantive evidence in phonology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Swift, L. (1963). Reference grammar of modern standard Turkish. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (1978). On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1, 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vago, R. (1974). Hungarian generative phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard. Circulated by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Vago, R. (1976). Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. LIn 7, 243–263.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. (1969). Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Lg 45. 309–321.Google Scholar