Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-xnzsz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T13:54:42.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Chris Golston
Chris Golston
Affiliation:
Heinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What influence do syntax and phonology have on one another ? Two types of answer to this question appear in the literature. The consensus view is probably best expressed by Zwicky & Pullum (1986) (see also Myers 1987; Vogel & Kenesei 1990), who claim that the relation is one-way: although phonological phrasing above the word is affected by syntactic structure, syntax itself is phonology-free.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 343 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. (1986). The OCP and Nyangumarda buffer vowels. NELS 16. 34–56.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. & Oehrle, R. T. (eds.) (1984). Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. (1987). Antigemination in English phonology. LI 16. 671–678.Google Scholar
Bulloch, A.W. (1970). A Callimachean refinement of the Greek hexameter: a new ‘law’ and some observations on Greek proclitics. Classical Quarterly 20. 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. (1986). OCP effects in Zulu. Ms, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
Clements, G.N. (1988). Towards a substantive theory of feature specification. NELS 18. 79–93.Google Scholar
Davis, S. (1991). Coronals and the phonotactics of non-adjacent consonants in English. In Paradis, C. & Prunet, J.-F. (eds.) The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A.M. & Stephens, L. (1978). The Greek appositives: toward a linguistically adequate definition of caesura and bridge. Classical Philology 73. 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, A.M. & Stephens, L. (1981). Bridges in the iambographers. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22. 303–321.Google Scholar
Devine, A.M. & Stephens, L. (1983). Semantics, syntax and phonological organization in Greek: aspects of the theory of metrical bridges. Classical Philology 78. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, H.F. (1960). Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.A. (1976). Autosegmentalphonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J.A. (1984). Meeussen's Rule. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 245–259.Google Scholar
Golston, C. (1989). Floating H (and L) tones in Ancient Greek. Proceedings of the Arizona Phonology Conference 3. 66–82.Google Scholar
Haas, W.G. de (1988). A formal theory of vowel coalescence: a case study of Ancient Greek. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–352.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, P. & Youmans, G. (eds.) Rhythm and meter. Orlando: Academic Press. 253–306.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. & Zee, D. (eds.) (1990). The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ito, J. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Ito, J. (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.Google Scholar
Ito, J. & Mester, A. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese: theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. LI 17. 49–74.Google Scholar
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmentalphonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published, New York: Garland M.Google Scholar
Leben, W. (1978). The representation of tone. In V., Fromkin (ed.) Tone:a linguistic survey. New York: Academic Press. 177–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepschy, A. L. & Lepschy, G. (1988). The Italian language today. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency. Phonetica 45. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A. S. (1993). Prosodic morphology I. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1987). Tone and structure of words in Shona. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1991). Persistent rules. LI 22. 315–344.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Poser, W. (1984). The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. (1984). Phonology with tiers. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 234–244.Google Scholar
Prince, A. S. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1986). Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauzet, P. (1989). L'accent du grec ancien et les relations entre structure metrique et representation autosegmentale. Langages 95. 81–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, B. & Steriade, D. (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–744.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. Phonology Yearbook 3 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1990). On the nature of prosodic constituency. In John, Kingston & Mary E., Beckman (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, H. W. (1920). Greek grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1981). Morphological haplology. Lg 57. 791–817.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1988). Greek accent: a case for preserving structure. LI 19. 271–314.Google Scholar
Terada, M. (1986). Minor phrasing in Japanese. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vogel, I. & Kenesei, I. (1990). Syntax and semantics in phonology. In Inkelas & Zee (1990). 339–363.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The OCP and phonological rules: a loss of identity. LI 19. 65–100.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1993). The interaction of ALIGN, PARSE-PLACE and ECHO in reduplication. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop.Google Scholar
Zec, D. (1993). Rule domains and phonological change. In Hargus, S. & Kaisse, E. (eds.) Studies in Lexical Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 365–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. & Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas & Zee (1990). 365–378.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Pullum, G. K. (1986). The principle of phonology-free syntax: introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 63–91Google Scholar