Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T09:48:23.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Luganda and the strict layer hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2020

Larry M. Hyman ,
Francis Katamba  and
Livingstone Walusimbi
Larry M. Hyman
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Francis Katamba
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Livingstone Walusimbi
Affiliation:
Makerere University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ability of a language's syntax to determine the application vs. non-application of postlexical phonological rules has by now been firmly established in a number of languages. Such rules, which apply above the word level, have come especially from the prosodic aspects of phonological structure, e.g. effects of syllabification, stress-accent, duration and tone. Much of the interest in this syntax-phonology interaction has centred around two general questions: (i) which specific properties of the syntax are available to affect the application of phonological rules?; (ii) how should these syntactic properties be incorporated into the phonology?

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 4 , May 1987 , pp. 87 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Footnotes

*

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the University of Southern California, Stanford University, U.C.L.A. and the 17th Annual Conference on African Linguistics at Indiana University. We would like to thank Bruce Hayes, Douglas Pulleyblank, Donca Steriade and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and criticisms of earlier drafts. While the data presented in this study are based on the speech of the second and third authors, we have checked our judgements with several other Luganda speakers, including Helen Kiraithe, James Magala, Milly Mulindwa, Alice Nabalamba, Eunice Rubega Poznansky and Bede Ssensalo, whom we gratefully thank for their assistance. Initial research on the prosodic structure of Luganda was supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. BNS81–12739. Finally, we would like to thank Marshall Cohen, Dean of Humanities, U.S.C., for additional financial support, without which this study would not have been possible.

References

Archangeli, Diana & Douglas, Pulleyblank (1986). The content and structure of phonological representations. Ms, University of Arizona & University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. O.Mulira, E. M. K.Ndaluwa, E. G. M. & Tucker, A. N. (1954). A Luganda grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1978). Tone and syntax in Ewe. In Donna, Jo Napoli (ed.) Elements of tone, stress, and intonation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 21–99.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Ph Y 2. 225–252.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1986). Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in LuGanda. In Leo, Wetzels & Engin, Sezer (eds.) Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris. 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Desmond T. (1967). Some features of Ganda linguistic structure. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
Dewees, John W. (1971). The role of syntax in the occurrence of the initial vowel in Luganda and some other Bantu languages. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1984). Meeussen's rule. In Mark, Aronoff & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 245–259.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1984). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
To appear in Kiparsky, P. & Youmans, G. (eds.) Rhythm and meter. Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heny, Frank (1971). Explanatory tone rules in Bantu. In Chin-Wu, Kim & Herbert, Stahlke (eds.) Papers in African linguistics. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 175–199.Google Scholar
Heny, Frank & Deirdre, Wheeler (1982). A categorial analysis of Luganda tone. Ms.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1982). Globality and the accentual analysis of Luganda tone. Journal of Linguistic Research 2. 1–40.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Walters, John R. (1984). Auxiliary focus. Studies in African Linguistics 15. 133–273.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis (1974). Luganda morphology and phonology. Ms, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis (1986). A non-linear account of the syllable in Luganda. In Didier, Goyvaerts (ed.) African linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 267–283.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. & Abasheikh, Mohammad Imam (1974). Vowel length in Chi Mwi:ni - a case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In Bruck, A.Fox, R. A. & La Galy, M. W. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 193–209.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1968). The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1970). Some tonal systems that come close to being pitch accent but don't quite make it. CLS 6. 526–532.Google Scholar
Mould, Martin (1972). The syntax and semantics of the initial vowel in Luganda. In Erhard, Voeltz (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on African linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 223–229.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene, Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980a). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Mark, Aronoff & Mary-Louise, Kean (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980b). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1986). On derived domains in phonology. Ph Y 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard (1973). Boundaries in phonology. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Paul, Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 185–206.Google Scholar
Stevick, E. W. (1969). Pitch and duration in Ganda. Journal of African Languages 8. 1–28.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. N. (1962). The syllable in Luganda: a prosodic approach. Journal of African Languages 1. 122–166.Google Scholar