Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T00:02:05.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonology in syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert Hetzron
Robert Hetzron
Affiliation:
Eastern Languages, University of California, Santa Barbara
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the present study I am adducing arguments against the assumption that there is a discrete level of grammar where all syntactic operation has stopped and the assignment of phonetic values to the then existing structure (the output of transformations) begins.

The concept of ‘surface structure’ has received the following definitions in Chomsky's various works: ‘a proper bracketing of the linear, temporarily given sequence of elements, with the paired brackets labelled by category names (that is a labelled tree diagram, with such categories as Sentence, Noun Phrase, Verb Phrase, Noun, and a small number of others serving as labels)' (Chomsky, 1966: 21), ‘the organization into categories and phrases that is directly associated with the physical signal’ (Chomsky, 1968:25). These definitions take the physical event of speech as a starting point, and refer to the organization of the sentence on this level (cf. Chomsky, 1965a: 15). One finds, on the other hand, that in the Chomskyan system ‘surface structure’ is also defined in terms of derivation, as the last item in a finite sequence of phrase-markers, the output of the transformations (Chomsky, 1970: 53 f., 87), and such surface structures ‘are mapped into phonetic representations by the phonological rules’ (ibid.: 54) and are assigned intonational contours by rules of phonological interpretation (ibid.: 77). This is summed up in the formula ‘phonology: Pn→phonetic representation’ (ibid.: 87, where Pn is the surface structure, the last phrase-marker).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , September 1972, pp. 251 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Abraham, R. G. (1964). Somali-English dictionary. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Andrzejewski, B. W. (1964). The declensions of Somali nouns. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto (1907). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. IF 25. 110–142.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred (1968). Two critical problems in accent rules. JL 4. 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English (The direct question). (Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 28.) Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. (1965). Binomials and pitch accent. Originally Lingua 11. 34–44 (1962). Reprinted in Abe, Isamu & Kenakiyo, Tetsuya (eds.), Dwight L. Bolinger, Forms of English, accent, morpheme, order. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 129–138.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg 47. 237–281.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965a). Persistent topics in linguistic theory. Diogenes 51. 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965b). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Current trends in linguistics, Vol. III, Theoretical foundation. The Hague: Mouton. 1–60.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Jakobson, Roman & Kawamoto, Shigeo (eds.), Studies in general and oriental linguistics presented to Shirô Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: TEC Company. 52–91Google Scholar
Fónagy, Iván & Magdics, Klára (1967). A magyar beszéd doliama. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Friedman, Sh. Y. (1971). Kol hakatsar kodem [‘The law of increasing members’ in Mishnaic Hebrew]. Leš 35. 117–129.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1967). Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic studies 12. 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1970). Non-verbal sentences and degrees of definiteness in Hungarian. Lg 46. 899–927.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1966). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Originally TCLP 6. 240–288 (1936). Reprinted in Hamp, Eric P. et al. (eds.), Readings in linguistics, II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 51–89.Google Scholar
Kirk, J. W. C. (1905). A grammar of the Somali language. Cambridge: The University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1959). Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8. 113–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Martino Mario (1955). It somalo della Somalia. Rome: Istitute Poligrafico dello Stato.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. (1970). Surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic inquiry 1. 187–255.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily (1971). Answers to yes-no questions. Linguistic inquiry 2. 69–82.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. (MS.) How to deal with syntactic irregularities: conditions on transformations or perceptual strategies.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1969). Phonological constraints in syntactic descriptions. Papers in linguistics 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar