Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 385–402 | Cite as

Phonology in syntax: The Somali optional agreement rule

  • Arnold M. Zwicky
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
Article

Conclusion

The conclusion we draw from our extended discussion of the interesting descriptive problem Hetzron provides is that Somali offers no support to the view his paper defended: that syntax and phonology are partially intermingled domains. Merely letting the agreement rules of Somali have access to phonological properties of morphemes would not, in any case, suffice for the statement Hetzron would like to make; as we have seen, no phonological properties of the relevant strings can be used to predict the occurrence of ‘playful agreement’; Hetzron does not even sketch a grammar-fragment that would achieve such prediction, and apparently this could not be done. An adequate account needs morphological features, and this does not need to make reference to phonology. Hetzron's point about the ‘playful’ character of the agreement possibilities with sub-plurals should really have been presented as a hypothesis about the historical development of Somali — a study of psychophonetic factors in syntactic change. It is crucial, however, to see that this is not the same as a hypothesis about the grammar of Somali. Speakers may be influenced by the sound of the sentences in their language when they go along with a tendency that leads to a change in the grammar; but that does not mean that syntactic rules in the grammar of a language can have phonological conditions. We claim, in fact, that in no language does any syntactic rule show sensitivity to phonological properties.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Morphological Feature Historical Development Extended Discussion Descriptive Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, R. G.: 1964, Somali-English Dictionary, Univ. of London Press, London.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R.: 1982, ‘Where's Morphology?’ Linguistic Inquiry 13, 4, 571–612.Google Scholar
  3. Andrzejewski, B. W.: 1964, The Declensions of Somali Nouns, School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, Lilias E.: 1934, The Phonetic Structure of Somali, Berlin. Republished 1964, Gregg Press, Ridgewood, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Babby, Leonard H.: 1980, ‘The Syntax of Surface Case Marking’, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1.1.32.Google Scholar
  6. Bever, Thomas G.: 1970, ‘The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures’, in John R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York; pp. 279–362.Google Scholar
  7. Bierwisch, Manfred: 1967, ‘Syntactic Features in Morphology: General Problems of So-called Pronominal Inflection in German’, in To Honor Roman Jakobson I, Mouton, The Hague; pp. 239–70.Google Scholar
  8. Cena, R. M.: 1978, When Is a Phonological Generalization Psychologically Real? IULC Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  9. Cutler, Anne: 1979, ‘The Psychological Reality of Word Formation and Lexical Stress Rules,’ Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetics, Copenhagen, 1979: Vol. II, Institute of Phonetics, pp. 79–85, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  10. Gazdar, Gerald and Geoffrey K. Pullum: 1982, Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: A Theoretical Synopsis, IULC, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  11. Grosu, Alexander: 1972, ‘The Strategic Content of Island Constraints,’ Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 13.Google Scholar
  12. : 1981, Approaches to Island Phenomena, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Hankamer, Jorge: 1972, ‘Analogical Rules in Syntax,’ Papers from the Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 8.111–23.Google Scholar
  14. Hetzron, Robert: 1972, ‘Phonology in Syntax’, Journal of Linguistics 8.251–65.Google Scholar
  15. Hyman, Larry M.: 1981, ‘Tonal Accent in Somali’, Studies in African Linguistics 12, 169–203.Google Scholar
  16. Kiparsky, Paul: 1968, ‘Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change’, in Emmon Bach and Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar
  17. : 1975, ‘What Are Phonological Theories About?’ in David Cohen and Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses, Hemisphere Publishing Co., Washington; pp. 187–209.Google Scholar
  18. Koutsoudas, Andreas, Gerald Sanders, and Craig Noll: 1974, ‘The Application of Phonological Rules’, Language 50, 1–28.Google Scholar
  19. Lapointe, Steven G.: 1980, A Theory of Grammatical Agreement, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Lieber, Rochelle: 1981, On the Organization of the Lexicon, IULC, reporudction of MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  21. Rhodes, Richard A.: 1976, The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan.Google Scholar
  22. Rivero, María-Luisa and Douglas C. Walker: 1976, ‘Surface Structure and the Centrality of Syntax’, Theoretical Linguistics 3, 99–124.Google Scholar
  23. Vanek, Anthony L.: 1977, Aspects of Subject Verb Agreement, Linguistic Research, Inc., Alberta. Edmonton. Originally published 1970.Google Scholar
  24. Zwicky, Arnold M.: 1969, ‘Phonological Constraints in Syntactic Descriptions’, Papers in Linguistics 1, 411–63.Google Scholar
  25. Zwicky, Arnold M.: 1982, ‘An Expanded View of Morphology in the Syntax-Phonology Interface,’ Preprints for the plenary session papers, the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Editorial Committee, pp. 168–78, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  26. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum: Forthcoming, The Syntax-Phonology Interface, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold M. Zwicky
    • 1
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusU.S.A.
  2. 2.Dept. of Linguistics Cowell CollegeUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations