Contrast in phonology, structural analogy, and the interfaces

Abstract

Abstract. This paper is concerned with (some of) the evidence for analogies in structure between phonology and syntax, and with (some of) the evidence for the basis for limitations on analogy. The first half of the paper (§§1–3) looks at syllable structure with a view to determining what aspects of syllable structure are contrastive, so basic. It is concluded that, particularly given the need to satisfy sonority, linearity within the syllable is minimally‐ or non‐contrastive, but that the head‐based structural relations of complementation and adjunction may be contrastive. §4 argues indeed that phonological (and specifically syllabic) structure displays the same distinctions among complement, adjunct and specifier that is evident in the syntax, and indicates that this analogy is not an isolated case by pointing to a further one involving harmony, a familiar notion from the phonology that can be applied to syntactic phenomena such as ‘sequence of tenses’. The paper concludes (§5) with a brief survey of factors limiting structural analogy. These all have to do with the demands of the interfaces of the linguistic with the extra‐linguistic: on the one hand, the need for the syntax to represent complex cognitively‐based scenes; on the other, the restrictions imposed by the phoneticity of phonology, particularly the requirements of sonority discussed initially.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.