Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:03:59.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Separating phonology from syntax: a reanalysis of Pashto cliticization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ellen M. Kaisse
Ellen M. Kaisse
Affiliation:
Universtiy of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. A pervasive, though not always explicit assumption of transformational grammar has been that syntactic and phonological rules form separate, discrete units in the organization of grammar; that phonological rules are not ordered among syntactic transformations, but rather apply in a block at the end of the syntactic derivation.1 Chomsky and Halle (1968) go even further in this separation, arguing that the surface structure is not the immediate input to the phonological component, but first undergoes certain ‘readjustment rules’, such as insertion of word boundaries. I have argued elsewhere (Kaisse, 1977) that this added step is unnecessary, and that there are in fact certain inter-word phonological processes that require the full information present in the labeled bracketing of the surface structure. However, my proposal is not a radical departure from the standard theory, in that it remains an INTERFACE model, in line with that proposed in Pullum and Zwicky (to appear). The claim remains that all syntactic rules apply before all phonological rules. In the case of word-internal phonological rules this is perhaps not crucial, but for rules of external sandhi, it is very important, both empirically and theoretically. For if we give up the requirement that no phonological rule apply during a syntactic derivation, we greatly increase the power of our theory of grammar and give up the ability to predict on a universal basis, the order of application of two rules, one phonological and the other syntactic.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1981 , pp. 197 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1972). Phonology in syntax. JL 8. 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, E. (1976). Stress melodies and a fast speech rule in Modern Greek. In Papers from the Sixth Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Ford, A., Reighard, J. & Singh, R. eds. Montreal: McGill University, Université de Montréal, Université de Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. (1977). On the syntactic environment of a phonological rule. PCLS 13. 173–185.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. (1979). Initial mutation in modern Irish. Masters thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1980). Functional explanations in generative phonology. In Phonology in the 1970's, Goyvaerts, D., ed. Ghent: Storey-Scientia.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Zwicky, A. (to appear). The syntax–phonology interface. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tegey, H. (1975). The interaction of phonological and syntactic processes: examples from Pashto. PCLS 11. 571–582.Google Scholar
Tegey, H. (1976). Some problems concerning surface structure constraints and clitic placement rules. PCLS 12. 628–639.Google Scholar
Tegey, H. (1977). The grammar of clitics: evidence from Pashto (Afghani) and other languages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1969). Phonological constraints in syntactic descriptions. PIL I. 411–463.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1970). Auxiliary reduction in English. LIn I. 323–336.Google Scholar