Cover not available
Part of
Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 163–188

Asymmetric variation

 | Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
 | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
 | Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest & Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
The free combination of independent phonological events is (implicitly) assumed by and built into the mechanisms of phonological models. Phonological variation occurring in independent dimensions applies orthogonally. In the possessive paradigms of Hungarian nouns this fails to apply. Suffixes may vary according to front/back harmony and being yod-initial, so we expect four variants for stems that vary in both dimensions. All four are attested if the suffix vowel is high: hotɛl-jyk%juk%yk%uk ‘their hotel’, but one allomorph is systematically missing if the suffix vowel is low: hotɛl-jɛ%jɑ%ɛ, *hotɛl-ɑ ‘his/her hotel’. We explain the gap by constraints requiring the uniformity of harmonic suffix behaviour, the quality of suffix-initial vowels, and the syllabic affiliation of stem-final consonants within the paradigm.
Keywords: phonological variation, paradigm uniformity, paradigm gap, interaction of variation types, analogical support, possessive allomorphy, Hungarian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Variation in yodfulness
    • 2.1Lowering and variation
    • 2.2Recent loans and variation
  • 3.Variation in backness harmony
  • 4.The orthogonality of (variation in) harmony and yodfulness
  • 5.The problem: The Y-suffixes of Bɛ stems
  • 6.Analysis
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c10
References (24)
References
Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2015a. Phonology without universal grammar. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Tonal allomorphy in Kinande. In L. H. Wee & Y. Hsiao (eds.), Capturing Phonological Shades, 76–100. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, F. Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Grammatical biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish voicing deneutralization. Language 87(1): 84–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J., T.A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.). 2005. Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23: 59–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kye Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Londe. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85: 822–863. DOI logoGoogle 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2005. Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Laura J. Downing, T. A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 145–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer Ferenc. 1985. Natural morphology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35: 85–105.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Laura J. Downing, T. A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 170–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder. [Published by Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.]
Rácz, Péter & Péter Rebrus. 2012. Variation in the possessive allomorphy of Hungarian. In Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds.), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rebrus, Péter. 2000. Morfofonológiai jelenségek. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan III. Alaktan, 763–947. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
. 2013. Miért nincs j? In Attila Benő, Emese Fazakas & Edit Kádár (eds.), „…hogy legyen a víznek lefolyása…” Köszöntő kötet Szilágyi N. Sándor tiszteletére, 383–401. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület Kiadó.Google Scholar
& Péter Szigetvári. 2016. Diminutives: Exceptions to harmonic uniformity. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15: 101–119.Google Scholar
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
Ritter, Nancy. 2002. The Hungarian possessive suffix revisited. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 8. Papers from the Budapest Conference, 283–307. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2015. Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony. Theoretical Linguistics 41(1–2): 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonović, Marko. 2015. Lexicon immigration service: Prolegomena to a theory of loanword integration. Ph.D thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the internal structure of the constraint component of UG. Colloquium presented at the University of California, Los Angeles. [ROA-86.]
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2000/2007. The Phonology of Hungarian. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Michael Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5. Acquisition and the Lexicon, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós. 2011. Hungarian vowel harmony. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2963–2990. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter
2024. The Oxford Handbook of Vowel Harmony, DOI logo
Rebrus, Péter, Péter Szigetvári & Miklós Törkenczy
2023. Morphological Restrictions on Vowel Harmony. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2021. Harmonic Uniformity and Hungarian front/back harmony. Acta Linguistica Academica 68:1-2 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Ozburn, Avery
2019. A target-oriented approach to neutrality in vowel harmony: Evidence from Hungarian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 december 2024. 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.