Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:34:47.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the boundaries of morphology and phonology: a case study from Modern Greek

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Irene P. Warburton
Irene P. Warburton
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistic Science, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been a great deal of discussion recently concerning the rôle that morphological and paradigmatic considerations play in the phonological structure of languages (e.g. Kiparsky, 1972, 1974; Anderson, 1974, 1975; Hooper, 1974; Harris, 1973; Kisseberth & Abasheikh, 1974). However, although it has generally been accepted that such factors play a part in determining the phonological properties of morphemes and words, the precise characterization of the interplay between phonology and morphology is not at present very clear. In this paper, I will examine two of the most interesting problems of Modern Greek (MG) that fall on the boundary line between morphology and phonology and thus provide a test case in the present debate. Moreover, since these problems have been previously examined both outside the transformational generative model (Householder, 1964) and within it (Warburton, 1970a, 1970b; Newton, 1972a, 1972b, 1973; Adams, 1972), the facts are fairly clear and, consequently, they offer excellent ground for arguing theoretical points.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , September 1976 , pp. 259 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Adams, D. (1972). Historical change and the phonological component of Greek: an inquiry into the history of the Greek verb from classical times to the present (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1974). On the typology of phonological rules. In Bruck, et al, 1974: 1–12.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1975). Interaction of phonological rules of various types. JL II. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babiniotis, G. (1972). To rhema tes Hellenikes. Athens.Google Scholar
Bruck, A., Fox, R. & LaGaly, M. (eds) (1974). Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cearley, A. The only phonological rule ordering principle. In Bruck et al., 1974: 30–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1973). Morphologization of phonological rules: an example from Chicano Spanish. (Mimeographed.) Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. (1974). Rule morphologization in natural generative phonology. In Bruck et al, 1974: 160–170.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1964). Three dreams of modern Greek phonology. Word 20. 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, F. W. (1974). Review of Newton, 1972b. Kratylos 18. 66–69.Google Scholar
Householder, F. W., Kazazis, K. & Koutsoudas, A. (1964). Reference grammar of Literary Dhimotiki. IJAL 30. 2, Part II.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1937). On Ancient Greek prosody. Translation in Jakobson, R., Selected writings, I: phonological studies, 262–271. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, , (1967). A propos de l'histoire de l'accentuation grecque. Langages 7–8. 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1972). Explanation in phonology. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals in linguistic theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1974). On the evaluation measure. In Bruck et al., 1974: 328–337.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. (1973). Is rule ordering necessary in phonology? In Kachru, B.et al. (eds), Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. Champaign/ Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. & Abasheikh, M. I. (1974). Vowel length in Chi-Mxi “ni” – A case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In Bruck et al., 1974: 193–209.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G. & Noll, C. (1974). On the application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Kuryiowicz, J. (1947). La nature des procés dits ‘analogiques’. AL 5. 15–37.Google Scholar
Malikouti, A. (1970). Metaschematistike morphologia tou neoellenikou onomatos. Athens.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirambel, A. (1959). La langue grecque moderne: description et analyse. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972a). The generative interpretation of dialect: a study of modern Greek phonology (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972b). Cypriot Greek: its phonology and inflections. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, B.Review of Warburton, 1970b, JL 9. 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (1973). Fast speech rules and some phonological processes of Modern Greek: a preliminary investigation. Epistemonike epeteris tes philosophikes scholes tou panepistemiou Athenon tou etous 1972–73. 372–390.Google Scholar
Warburton, I. P. (1970a). Rules of accentuation in classical and modern Greek. Glotta 48. 107–121.Google Scholar
Warburton, I. P. (1970b). On the verb in Modern Greek (Language science monographs, 4). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar