Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:04:32.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interface between phonology and other components of grammar: the case of Hungarian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2020

Irene Vogel  and
István Kenesei
Irene Vogel
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
István Kenesei
Affiliation:
University of Szeged
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When a phonological rule applies across words, it is necessary to be able to specify across which types of words it may apply and across which it may not, or in other words, within which domain it applies. That such domains do not necessarily coincide with syntactic constituents has been amply demonstrated in such works as Clements (1978), Napoli & Nespor (1979), Rotenberg (1978), Selkirk (1978, 1984), Nespor & Vogel (1982, 1986) and Kaisse (1985). As has been argued in recent work, what is needed instead is a somewhat more complex theory in which there is a more complex type of interaction between phonological rules and syntactic structures. In the past few years, several such theories have been proposed, in particular, those advanced by Selkirk (1984), Kaisse (1985) and Nespor & Vogel (1986).

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 4 , May 1987 , pp. 243 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank László Kálmán, Ádám Nádasdy and Péter Siptár for patiently helping us with the data, and László Varga for his insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank the Phonology Yearbook readers and Marina Nespor for their helpful comments.

References

Clements, G. N. (1978). Tone and syntax in Ewe. In Napoli, D. J. (ed.) Elements of tone, stress, and intonation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 21–99.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. (1981). Structural relations in Hungarian, a ‘free’ word order language. LI 12. 185–213.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. (forthcoming). Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. (1981). Aspects of Hungarian syntax and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation: UCLA.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. (1986). Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kálmán, L. & Kornai, A. (forthcoming). Hungarian sentence intonation. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) Pitch accent. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. (1984). On what really figures in a non-configurational language. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 24. 28–54.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. (1986). On the logic of word order in Hungarian. In Abraham, W. & de Mey, S. (eds.) Topic, focus and Configurationality. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, I. (forthcoming). Pronouns as variables in Hungarian. In Marácz, L. K. & Muysken, P. (eds.) Configurationality, AUX, and lexical structure. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. & Vogel, I. (forthcoming). Prosodic phonology in a nonconfigurational language.Google Scholar
Marácz, L. K. (1986). Syntactic disconnexity. Ms, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Marácz, L. K. (forthcoming). On the status of the projection principle in Hungarian. In Kenesei, I. (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 2. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Nespor, M. (1979). The syntax of word-initial consonant gemination in Italian. Lg 55. 812–841.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 225–255.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rotenberg, J. (1978). The syntax of phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Paper presented at the Conference on Mental Representation in Phonology. Published in Fretheim, T. (ed.) (1981). Nordic prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, M. & Kean, M.-L. (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Ph Y 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Varga, L. (1983). Hungarian sentence prosody: an outline. Folia Linguistica 17. 117–151.10.1515/flin.1983.17.1-4.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varga, L. (1985). Intonation in the Hungarian sentence. In Kenesei, I. (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1. Szeged: JATE. 205–224.Google Scholar