Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference
Edited by Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták
[Approaches to Hungarian 15] 2017
► pp. 135–156

Co-patterns, subpatterns and conflicting generalizations in Hungarian vowel harmony

| Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
| Eötvös Loránd University
In this paper we examine coexisting patterns of variation in Hungarian front/back harmony conditioned by prosodic structure (the Polysyllabic Split), locality (the Count Effect), morphological structure/uniformity (Harmonic Uniformity) and the paradigmatic property of whether a suffix is harmonically alternating or harmonically invariant (Sequential Bias). We show that these patterns of harmony may be in conflict and some prevail over the others in environments of conflict. We argue for an approach that employs wide-scope generalisations holding over all the relevant forms where the conflict is resolved by specificity: when in conflict, the more specific ones win.
Keywords: Hungarian front/back harmony, variation, neutral vowels, count effect, Elsewhere Condition
Published online: 24 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.05reb
References

References

Albright, Adam
2002 The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles PhD. dissertation.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank
2002 Kinande vowel harmony: domains, grounded conditions and one-sided alignment. Phonology 19. 139–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, Outi
2005 Competing principles of in paradigm uniformity: Evidence from the Hebrew imperative paradigm. In Laura J. Downing, T. Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 44–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura
1995 Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 77–136. Amherst, GLSA.Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia & Dániel Szeredi
2013 Hungarian neutral vowels: a microcomparison. Nordlyd 40.1. 20–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borowsky, Toni
1986 Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst PhD. dissertation.Google Scholar
Forró, Orsolya
2013 Ingadozás a magyar elölségi harmóniában. Szempontok a variabilitás szinkróniájának és diakróniájának feltárásához és értelmezéséhez [Variation in palatal harmony in Hungarian. Approaches to the interpretation of synchronic and diachronic variability]. Piliscsaba: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem PhD. dissertation.Google Scholar
Halácsy, Péter, András Kornai, László Németh, András Rung, István Szakadát, & Viktor Trón
2004 Creating open language resources for Hungarian. In Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisca Xavier, Fátima Ferreira, Rute Costa & Raquel Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004, May 26–28, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, 1201–1204. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Cziráky Londe
2006 Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23. 59–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár, & Zsuzsa Londe
2009 Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–863. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der
2015 Phonological ambiguity. Theoretical Linguistics 41.1–2. 79–87. Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Armin. Mester
1995 Japanese phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.) The Handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 817–847.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László & Forró Orsolya
2014 „Lökött” korlátok nyomában. Rejtélyes mássalhangzó-magánhangzó interakciók a magyar elölségi harmóniában. [In search of unnatural constraints: mysterious consonant-vowel interactions in Hungarian backness harmony]. In É. Kiss Katalin & Hegedűs Attila (eds.), Nyelvelmélet és diakrónia 2. [Linguistic theory and language history 2.], 109–129. Piliscsaba: PPKE BTK.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László, Péter Rebrus & Miklós Törkenczy
2012 Possible and impossible variation. In Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds.), Current issues in morphological theory. (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency. Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 23–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael
1996 Base-identity and uniform exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. In Jacques Durand & Bertrand Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 363–393. European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1973 ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Karl Pajusalu
2003 Towards a typology of disharmony. The Linguistic Review 20. 217–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin
2003 Vowel harmony and correspondence theory. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, Tal, Sofya Kasyanenko & Maria Gouskova
2013 Lexical and phonological variation in Russian prepositions. Phonology 30. 453–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew
2010 Locality in vowel harmony. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe
2007 The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly & Adam Werle (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory III., 259–296. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & Miklós Kontra
1989 Hungarian neutral vowels. Lingua 78. 181–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, Catherine & Orvokki Heinämäki
1999 Variation in Finnish vowel harmony: an OT account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 303–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rebrus, Péter
2000 Morfofonológiai jelenségek. [Morphophonology] In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia. [A structural grammar of Hungarian 3. Morphology.], 763–947. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Péter Szigetvári
2013 Antiharmony, transparency, truncation. Poster presented at the 21st Manchester Phonology Meeting, 25 May 2013. http://​seas3​.elte​.hu​/szigetva​/papers​/att​.pdf
Rebrus, Péter, Péter Szigetvári & Miklós Törkenczy
2012 Dark secrets of Hungarian vowel harmony. In Eugeniusz Cyran, Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), Sound, Structure and Sense: Studies in memory of Edmund Gussmann, 491–508. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Trón Viktor
2002 A fonotaktikai általánosításokról: Kísérlet a magyar mássalhangzó-kapcsolatok nem-reprezentációs leírására [On phonotactics generalizations: a non-representational account of Hungarian consonant clusters]. In Maleczki Márta (ed.) A mai magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei V. [New methods in the description of Hungarian V], 17–63. Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2005 Uniformity and contrast in the Hungarian verbal paradigm. In Laura J. Downing, T. Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 262–295. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
2015a Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony. Theoretical Linguistics 41.1–2. 1–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b The monotonic behaviour of language patterns. Theoretical Linguistics 41.3–4. 241–268.Google Scholar
2015c An ‘unnatural’ pattern of variation in vowel harmony: a frequency-based account. Poster presented at 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP 2015), University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 9–11 October (http://​budling​.nytud​.hu​/~tork​/owncikk​/Vancouver​_2015​_poster​.pdf).
2016 Monotonicity and the limits of disharmony. In Adam Albright & Michelle A. Fullwood (eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 meeting on phonology. 1–12. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America,Google Scholar
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2000 The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós
2006 The phonotactics of Hungarian verbs. In László Varga (ed.), The Even Yearbook 7: ELTE SEAS Working Papers in Linguistics. Budapest: ELTE.Google Scholar
2011 Hungarian vowel harmony. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2963–2990. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós, Péter Rebrus & Péter Szigetvári
2013 Harmony that cannot be represented. In Johan Brandtler, Valéria Molnár & Christer Platzack (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference Volume 13, 229–252. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trón, Viktor & Péter Rebrus
2001 Morphophonology and the hierarchical lexicon. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48/1–3. 101–136.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1999 Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In Jean-Marc Authier, Barbara E. Bullock & Lisa A. Reed (eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics: selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVIII), University Park, 16–19 April 199, 243–270. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Michael Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 5., 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert
1980 The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie
2015 Polarized exceptions: extreme bi-modal distributions of exceptional words. Talk delivered at 12th Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP12), Barcelona 27–30 January.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2021. Harmonic Uniformity and Hungarian front/back harmony. Acta Linguistica Academica 68:1-2 ► pp. 175 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.