Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:04:22.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Romance disagreements: phonology interfering with syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Frans Plank
Frans Plank
Affiliation:
Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. On the (no doubt reasonable) assumption that cross-linguistic variation is subject to limitations due to the existence of universal constraints on linguistic rules and regularities, it is obviously desirable as a matter of descriptive principle to draw the limits within which individual languages may vary from one another as narrowly as the available cross-linguistic empirical evidence (plausibly interpreted) allows. Focusing on two interestingly interrelated aspects of linguistic regularities, viz. on possible conditions on agreement and on possible interactions of phonology and syntax, this paper once more tells a familiar tale: drawing the limits as narrowly as seems feasible vis-à-vis a relatively broad range of data may unfortunately turn out to be unjustified in the light of further, previously unavailable or – worse – ignored evidence. One always hopes, though, that having to redraw the limits is not tantamount to admitting that languages after all perhaps do vary without assignable limit.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 329 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Alcina, Franch J. & Blecua, J. M. (1975). Gramática española. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where's morphology? Lin 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Badia, Margarit A. M. (1951). Gramática histórica catalana. Barcelona: Noguer.Google Scholar
Badia, Margarit A. M. (1962). Gramática catalana, tomo I. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Cecchini, M. (1968). Manuel de sintaxis española. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1979). The agreement hierarchy. JL 15. 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delisle, G. L. (1973). Non-standard agreement and the marking hypothesis. Working Papers on Language Universals II. 85–138.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1972). Phonology in syntax. JL 8. 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1977). The power of morphological rules. Lingua 42. 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, L. G. (1977). Cross-reference. In Drachman, G. (ed.), Akten der 2. Salzburger Frühlingstagung für Linguistik, Tübingen: Narr. 127–140.Google Scholar
Kelly, R. C. (1973). A descriptive analysis of Gascon. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1982). Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Seiler, H. & Stachowiak, F. J. (ed), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegensränden, II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen, Tübingen: Narr. 201–267.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). Agreement. In Greenberg, J. H. et al. (eds), Universals of human language, IV: Syntax, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 331–374.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. (1982). Zum Konzept der Kongruenz. In Seiler, H. & Lehmann, C. (eds), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene, Tübingen: Narr. 252–269.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1982). Conditioning at a distance and variable ordering in morphology. Unpublished paper (read in part at the LAGB Autumn Meeting, Canterbury).Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). Two cases in English where a general constraint against non-local conditioning of allomorphy could prove beneficial. Paper read at the conference on Theoretical Approaches to Morphology, Budapest.Google Scholar
Pope, M. K. (1934). From Latin to Modern French with especial consideration of Anglo-Norman. Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Zwicky, A. M. (1975). Sections from ‘The principle of phonology-free syntax.’ Working Papers in Linguistics (Ohio State University) 18. 172–183.Google Scholar
Ronjat, J. (1937). Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes, tome III. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
Serzisko, F. (1982). Numerus/Genus-Kongruenz und das Phänomen der Polarität am Beispiel einiger ostkuschitischer Sprachen. In Seiler, H. & Stachowiak, F. J. (eds), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen, Tübingen: Narr. 179–200Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (1979). Phonology of Catalan. (Publications of the Philological Society 28.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilkins, W. (1980). Adjacency and variables in syntactic transformations. LIn II. 709–758.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1969). Phonological constraints in syntactic description. PiL 1. 411–463.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Phonology in syntax: the Somali Optional Agreement Rule. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory I. 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar