Hungarian Emerging

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published 29-01-2025
Diana Archangeli
Douglas Pulleyblank

Abstract

Phonological theories tend to focus on the end point of learning, the adult grammar, assuming some innate linguistic component determines the nature of the grammar that is acquired. In Emergent phonology, we explore the hypothesis that adult grammars take the shapes they have because they can be acquired; we go further and propose that there is no innate linguistic component for phonological acquisition. Given these hypotheses, grammars are acquired piecemeal and learners rapidly generalise over subparts of the lexicon. One prediction is that we expect languages to have regularities with widely differing effect – both general patterns and subpatterns that exist but only in a narrow domain. We test this hypothesis against Hungarian vowel harmony, a harmony pattern that is often described as involving both [back] harmony and [round] harmony, despite the fact that the language has nonharmonic suffixes, suffixes with limited harmony, disharmony, antiharmony, and both transparency and opacity. In particular, we discuss patterns of suffix alternation involving harmony. The patterns, morphologically determined, range from no alternation, to alternating only along the front-back dimension, to alternating in terms of both backness and rounding, to alternating in terms of backness, rounding and height.

How to Cite

Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 2025. “Hungarian Emerging”. Anuario Del Seminario De Filología Vasca "Julio De Urquijo" 57 (1-2):43-66. https://doi.org/10.1387/asju.25948.
Abstract 35 | PDF Downloads 30

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

References
Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5. 183–207.
Archangeli, Diana, Adam Baker & Jeff Mielke. 2011. Categorization and features: Evidence from American English /r/. In Rachid Ridouane & G. N. Clements (eds.), Where do Phonological Contrasts Come From?, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675711000029.
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2007. Harmony. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 353–378. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2016. Emergent morphology. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (ed.), Morphological Metatheory, 237–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2018. Phonology as an emergent system. In S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, 476–503. London: Routledge.
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2022. Emergent Phonology (Conceptual Foundations of Language Science 7). Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org./10.5281/zenodo.5721159.
Benus, Stefan & Adamantios Gafos. 2007. Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian ‘transparent’ vowels. Journal of Phonetics 35. 271–300.
Gafos, Adamantios. 1999. The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology. New York: Garland.
Gafos, Adamantios & Amanda Dye. 2011. Vowel harmony: Opaque and transparent vowels. In Marc van Oostendoorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, volume IV: Phonological Interfaces, 2164–2189. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA & Oxford.
Gerken, LouAnn & Alex Bollt. 2008. Three exemplars allow at least some linguistic generalizations: Implications for generalization mechanisms and constraints. Language Learning and Development 4. 228–248.
Gerken, LouAnn, Colin Dawson, Razanne Chatila & Josh Tenenbaum. 2015. Surprise! Infants consider possible bases of generalization for a single input example. Developmental science 18(1). 80–89.
Gerken, LouAnn & Carolyn Quam. 2016. Infant learning is influenced by local spurious generalizations. Developmental science. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12410.
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant Harmony: Long-Distance Interaction in Phonology (University of California Publications in Linguistics 145). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Cziráky Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23. 59–104.
Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Cziráky Londe. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–863.
Heinz, Jeffrey, Chetan Rawal & Herbert Tanner. 2011. Tier-based strictly local constraints for phonology. In Dekang Lin, Yuji Matsumoto & Rada Mihalcea (eds.), Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human language technologies, 58–64. Portland, Oregon: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Jardine, Adam. 2016. Learning tiers for long-distance phonotactics. In Laurel Perkins, Rachel Dudley, Juliana Gerard & Kasia Hitczenko (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2015), 60–72. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Jardine, Adam & Jeffrey Heinz. 2016. Learning tier-based strictly 2-local languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4. 87–98.
McMullin, Kevin James. 2016. Tier-based locality in long-distance phonotactics: Learnability and typology. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia doctoral dissertation.
Mielke, Jeff, Adam Baker & Diana Archangeli. 2016. Individual-level contact reduces phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched and retroflex /ô/. Language 92. 101–140.
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil, Diana Archangeli & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2010. The emergence of optimality theory. In Linda Ann Uyechi & Lian-Hee Wee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 143-158. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Jaye Padgett. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Linda Lombardi (ed.), Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory, 118–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (RuCCS Technical Report 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
Ringen, Catherine & Robert Vago. 1998. Hungarian vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. Phonology 15. 393–416.
Rose, Sharon & Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80. 475–531.
Rose, Sharon & Rachel Walker. 2011. Harmony systems. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. Yu (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. 2nd edn., 240–290. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1998. A Typological Investigation of Dissimilation. University of Arizona doctoral dissertation.
Törkenczy, Miklós. 2011. Hungarian vowel harmony. In Marc van Oostendoorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2963–2990. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vago, Robert. 1976. Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 243–263.
Section
Articles