4. Fixed stress systems: Iambs
Review:
Hayes (1987, 1995): Iambic feet consist of units of uneven duration.
(1)
The Iambic / Trochaic Law (Hayes 1987, 1995: 80):
a. Elements contrasting in intensity naturally form groupings with initial
prominence.
b. Elements contrasting in duration naturally form groupings with final
prominence.
Direct predictions of the ITL: Enhancement of durational contrasts in iambic systems
(via lengthening of stressed elements or shortening of unstressed ones) but not in
trochaic ones.
Indirect prediction of the ITL: Trochaic shortening (e.g. co…ne, conic)
Prince (1990)
(2) Weight-to-Stress Principle (WSP): If heavy, then stressed.
Foot typology based on WSP:
(3)
(4)
Iambic
Trochaic
(5)
iambs
(. *)
σ σ
LH, LL
*(HL) violate WSP, *(HH) force an unstressed H
*(LH) violate WSP, *(HH) force an unstressed H
HL, LL
or
(. *)
σσ
(*)
σ
µ
µµ
µµ
µµ
L
H
LL
H
canonical iamb
moraic iambs
4.1. The problem with iambs
Syllabic (=Even) iambs are extremely rare; there exist cross-linguistic gaps
R→L iambic systems can be re-analyzed as moraic trochees
The ITL is too strong a constraint/principle; there exist durational contrasts in trochaic
systems as well.
Extreme proposal: There are no iambic feet! (see van de Vijver 1998). On the other
hand, recently, evidence for syllabic iambs has been put forward (e.g. Altshuler’s to
appear analysis of Osage).
4.2. Case studies
4.2.1. Left-to-right iambs
Case study 1: Hixkaryana (Cariban, Northern Brazil; Derbyshire 1979, 1985; Blevins
1990; Hayes 1995; van de Vijver 1998; Kager 1999)
page 42
Stress from a typological perspective
Hixkaryana phonology in a nutshell (based on van de Vijver 1998: 106, who cites
Derbyshire 1979, 1985):
o vowels: /e, œ, ¨, O, u/
o all words end in a vowel; only final /¨/may delete
o there is no contrastive vowel length
o predictable vowel length occurs on the first syllable of disyllabic words,
provided it is open (6a), or on even numbered open syllables counting from
the beginning of the word, or another long vowel, or from a closed syllable
(6b):
(6)
&
a.
b.
kwœ…jœ
tOnO…|O
nemO…kOtO…nO
œkmœtœ…|¨
nœkNOhjœtSkenœ…nO
‘red and green macaw’
‘small bird’
‘it fell’
‘branch’
‘they were burning’
LENGTHENING of stressed syllable is characteristic of iambic rhythm (see the ITL).
(7)
distribution of stress
a.
kwœ!…jœ
b.
tOnO!…|O
c.
nemO!…kOtO!…nO
d.
œ!kmœtœ!…|¨
e.
khœnœ!…n¨!hnO
f.
m¨hœ!…nœn¨!hnO
g.
O!wtOhO!…nœ
h.
tO!hku«e!…hOnœ
i.
tO!hku«e!…hOnœ!…hœSœ!…hœ
(8)
footing in words consisting of open syllables only
a.
(kwœ!…)jœ
‘red and green macaw’
(7a)
b.
(tOnO!…)|O
‘small bird’
(7b)
c.
(nemO!…)(kOtO!…)nO
‘it fell’
(7c)
d.
(atSO!…)wowo
‘wind’
(Kager 1999: 148)
(9)
footing in words beginning with a closed syllable
a.
(œ!k)(mœtœ!…)|¨
‘branch’
b.
(O!w)(tOhO!…)nœ
‘to the village’
c.
(tO!h)(ku«e!…)hOnœ
‘to Tokhurye’
d.
(tO!h)(ku«e!…)(hOnœ!…)(hœSœ!…)hœ
‘finally to Tokhurye’
(10)
‘red and green macaw’
‘small bird’
‘it fell’
‘branch’
‘I taught you’
‘you taught him’
‘to the village’
‘to Tokhurye’
‘finally to Tokhurye’
(7d)
(7g)
(7h)
(7i)
footing in words with (multiple) closed syllables in various positions
a.
(khœnœ!…)(n¨!h)nO
‘I taught you’
(7e)
b.
(m¨hœ!…)(nœn¨!h)nO
‘you taught him’
(7f)
c.
(nœ!k)(NO!h)(jœ!tS)(kenœ!…)nO
‘they were burning’
⌦ Hixkaryana stress parameter settings:
Foot type (Head): Iamb(Right-headed)
QS: Yes (CVC syllables count as H)
Directionality: Left→Right
Iterativity: Yes
Extrametricality: Yes
End-Rule: ??? (Position of main stress hinges on intonation pattern)
Degenerate feet: No (In disyllabic words, sub-minimal lengthening takes place)
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
(11)
(12)
(13)
page 43
Iambic Lengthening rule (Hayes 1995: 206):
σσ
||\
∅ → µ/ µ µ __
|/
α
Sub-minimal lengthening
σ
|\
∅ → µ/# µ __#
|/
α
a.
IL
(khœnœ!)(n¨!h)nO
(khœnœ!…)(n¨!h)nO
b.
SL
(kwœ!)jœ
(kwœ!…)jœ
⌦ An OT analysis of Hixkaryana stress (based on Kager 1999: 150ff):
(14)
constraint set
a.
Uneven-Iamb: (LH) > (LL), (H)
b.
GRWD=PRW: A grammatical word must be a prosodic word.
c.
FTBIN: Feet must be binary under moraic or syllabic analysis.
d.
WSP: Heavy syllables are stressed.
e.
RHTYPE=I: Feet have final prominence.
f.
PARSE-σ: Parse syllables into feet.
g.
ALL-FT-L: Align (Ft, Left, PrW, Left)
Every foot stands at the left edge of the word.
h.
NONFINALITY: No foot is final in the PrW.
i.
DEP-Μ-ΙΟ: Output moras have input correspondents.
(15)
Constraint ranking:
GRWD=PRW, NONFIN, FTBIN » UNEVEN-IAMB » PARSE-σ » DEP-µ-IO, ALL-FT-L
(16)
GRWD=PRW, FTBIN » DEP-µ-IO
UNEVEN-IAMB » DEP-µ-IO
(17)
/kwœjœ/
& a. (kwœ!…)jœ
b. (kwœjœ!…)
c. kwœja
d. (kwœ!)jœ
(18)
/atSOwowo/
& a. (atSO!…)wowo
b. (atSO!…)(wowo!…)
c. (a!…)(tSOwo!…)wo
GRWD=PRW
sub-minimal lengthening
iambic lengthening
NONFIN
FTBIN
UNEVEN-IAMB
*
*!
*!
*!
NONFIN
UNEVEN-IAMB
PARSE-σ
**
*!
*
PARSE-σ
*
**!*
**!*
ALL-FT-L
*!
(19) PARSE-σ » ALL-FT-L » ALL-FT-R
/nemOkOtOnO/
NONFIN
& a. (nemO!…)(kOtO!…)nO
b. (nemO!…)kOtOnO
c. nemO(kOtO!…)nO
**
DEP-µ-IO
*
**
**
DEP-µ-IO
*
*
page 44
Stress from a typological perspective
(20)
/tOhku«ehOnœ/
GRWD=PRW
& a. (tO!h)(ku«e!…)hOnœ
b. (tO!h)(ku«e!…)(hO!…)nœ
c. (tO!h)(ku«e!…)(hOnœ!…)
d. (tOhku!…)(«ehO!…)nœ
e. tOh(ku«e!…)hOnœ
WSP
NONFIN
*!
*!
*!
UNEVENIAMB
*
**!
*
*
PARSE-σ
**
*
*
***
ALLFT-L
*
*, ***
*, ***
**
*
# Thought exercise 1: Consider the following data from Negev Bedouin Arabic and
provide an OT analysis of their stress:
(21)
Negev
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Bedouin Arabic (Blanc 1970; Kenstowicz 1983; Hayes 1995: 226)
gahawati!…(h)
‘my coffee’ B142
Sargiy
‘eastern’ B122
Vana!mna
‘our sheep’ B120
ta©ata!…niy
‘lower’ B126
baSSibri!yyih
(no gloss) B140
a!ttifag
‘to agree’ B117
asta!fhamah
‘he queried him’ B132
bina!
‘he built’ B124
dZima!l
‘camel’ B121
a/a!ma
‘blind’ B124
gaha!wah
‘coffee’ B126
ankita!law
‘they were killed’ B121
zala!matak
‘your man’ B121
Case study 2: Unami (Delaware, Eastern Algonquian language; Goddard 1979, 1982;
Hayes 1995: 211ff)
Unami phonology in a nutshell:
o CV…, CVC = heavy; CV = light
o Long vowels: /i…, e…, o…, a…/; short vowels: /´, a/; there are limited occurrences
of phonemic short /i, e, o/
(22)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
/p´k´w/
/Saw´s´w/
/n´Saw´si…/
/maxk´s´w/
/e…nta-maxkawi…t/
/Sa…wala…mwi…t´wak/
(23)
iambic
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
footing and vowel reduction
(p´k´!w)
(Saw´!)<(s´w)>
(n´Sa!)<(w´si…)>
(ma!x)<(k´s´w)>
(e…n)(ta-ma!x)<(kawi…t)>
(Sa…)(wala…)(nwi!…)<(t´wak)>
1
→
→
→
→
→
→
[pko!]1
[Saw´!so]
[nSa!wsi]
[ma!xkso]
[entama!xkai…t]
[Sa…Ola…mwi!…ttowak]
‘(vegetable) gum’ Gxi
‘he is weak’ Gxiv
‘I am weak’ Gxiv
‘he is red’ Gxx
‘when he found me’ Gxiii
‘the little ones starved to
death’ Gxiii
of in weak foot positions
→
[pko!]
→
[Saw´!so]
→
[nSa!wsi]
→
[ma!xkso]
→
[entama!xkai…t]
→
[Sa…Ola…mwi!…ttowak]2
Degenerate feet are tolerated under primary stress only.
A voiceless consonant other than /h/ is geminated after a stressed vowel. This is yet another
strengthening effect that takes place in iambic languages.
2
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 45
4.2.2. Right-to-left iambs
The existence of right-to-left iambs has been questioned. For instance, Kager (1991) and
van der Hulst (1999) propose a re-analysis of Tübatulabal stress by means of moraic
trochees, whereas van de Vijver extends the trochaic approach to several right-to-left
iambic systems (e.g. Aklan, Cebuano, Weri, Tiberian Hebrew, etc.).
Case study: Tübatulabal (Uto-Aztecan; Voegelin 1935; Voegelin and Voegelin 1977)3
(24)
a.
three syllables
ca!mbaha!l
pa!NNatta!l
tci!Niya!l
hani!ila!
o!oyo!oli!in
‘the carrying net’
‘the god’
‘the red thistle’
‘the house-OBJ’
‘to plow’
b.
four syllables
hanni!/ullu!
ha/È!bi/È!tt
wÈta!Nhata!l
a!aha!yyammÈ!n
ta!aha!wila!
ta!aha!wila!ap
‘your house-PL’
‘he’s joking’
‘the Tejon Indians’
‘he stirred it there’
‘the summer-OBJ’
‘in the summer’
c.
five syllables
a!nnaNNa!ppuwa!tt
È!mbÈNwi!ba/a!t
waSa!aga!haja!
pÈtÈ!tpÈtÈ!Èdina!t
‘he seems to be crying’
‘he is wanting to roll string on his thigh’
‘it might flame up’
‘he is turning it over repeatedly’
six syllables
ma!ancu!/ana!xttaya!tt
a!naNi!ini!nÈmu!t
‘he is taming him’
‘he is crying wherever he goes (DISTR)’
e.
seven syllables
a!adza!aya!awini!iba/a!tt
wÈ!taNha!tala!abatsu!
‘he wants to yell at him’
‘away from the Tejon Indians’
f.
eight syllables
a!nnaNNa!alilo!ogi!ba/a!tt
‘he wants to go pretending to cry’
d.
Main stress is on the final syllable; in fact, every final syllable is stressed. Van de
Vijver (1998) does not indicate the distinction between primary and secondary stress. It
is curious that most iambic systems (e.g. Hixkaryana, Eastern Ojibwa, Seneca, etc.),
lack a clear level of higher metrical structure (i.e. End-Rule L/R).
Under a right-to-left iambic analysis, degenerate feet are allowed in this language:
(ta!a)(ha!)(wila!) (24b), (a!)(naNi!i)(ni!)(nÈmu!t) (24d) suggesting the following ranking:
(25)
3
PARSE-σ » FTBIN
In their (1977) paper, Voegelin and Voegelin report that Tübatulabal recorded in the seventies
has lost many of the properties of Tübatulabal in the thirties, a sign of language degeneration. The
discussion in this section is based on van de Vijver (1998), who examines Tübatulabal in the
thirties.
page 46
Stress from a typological perspective
Under a moraic trochee analysis, degenerate feet are permitted only under primary
stress. Catalexis can be invoked to recuperate foot ill-formedness. In the moraic trochee
approach only CV… syllables count as heavy:
(26)
a.
annaNNaaliloogiba/att
b.
DF
annaNNaaliloogiba(/a!tt)
MorTr (a~nnaN)(Na~a)li(lo~o)(gi~ba)(/a!tt)
! naNNa!alilo!ogi!ba(/a!tt)
an
taahawila
c.
waSaagahaja
taahawi(la!)
waSaagaha(ja!)
(ta~a)(ha~wi)(la!)
wa(Sa~a)(ga~ha)(ja!)
ta!aha!wila!
waSa!aga!haja!
Van de Vijver (1998: 205-207): Final stress was once predictable (Wheeler 1979a, b)
but now it is lexical. According to Voegelin (1935), a mora was lost in word-final
position, resulting in V# words from V…# ones and C# words from CV# ones. When the
word-final long vowel shortened, its stress was fossilized. Similarly, the penultimate
stress is CV!CV# was fossilized as a CVC# syllable, yielding final stress. Van de Vijver
constructs an analysis which is in agreement with the diachronic facts. Final stress is due
to an inherent lexical stress(/accent) which must be preserved in the output
(FAITH(acc)). The rest is taken care of by the familiar by now constraints, RIGHTMOST,
FTBIN, PARSE-σ, WSP and RHYTHM-TYPE=T.4
(27)
FAITH(acc): Input lexical accent must be preserved in the output.
(28)
Constraint ranking:
FAITH(acc), RHYTHM-TYPE=T, WSP, RIGHTMOST » FTBIN
(29)
/taahawila/
FAITH(acc)
& a. (ta~a)(ha~wi)(la!)
b. (ta~a)ha(wi!la)
c. (ta~aha)wi(la!)
RHYTHMTYPE=T
PARSE-σ
WSP
RIGHTMOST
FTBIN
*
*!
*
*!
(30) Fill in the following tableau
/annaNNaaliloogiba/att/ FAITH(acc)
RHYTHMTYPE=T
PARSE-σ
*
WSP
RIGHTMOST
FTBIN
& a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
# Thought exercise 2: Consider the following data from Cebuano (Philippines; Shryock
1993; van de Vijver 1998: 180ff) and develop an OT analysis of the attested stress
patterns. Discuss possible problems and issues raised concerning the foot type you
employ in your analysis.
(31)
a.
penultimate stress
ti!n.da
su!l.ti
hi.gu!g.ma
ta~r.ta.ni!l.ya
‘sell’
‘say
‘love’
‘carriage’
4
The analysis proposed here is a somewhat modified version of the one proposed by van de Vijver
(1998) so that we can call upon the constraint set introduced so far.
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
la!d.lad
mu.ma!n.dar
&
page 47
‘bleach’
‘APF-command’5
b.
penultimate stress; final syllable is open
Ni!.si
‘grin’
da!.ro
‘plow’
/a.ba!.ga
‘shoulder’
is.da!./a
‘this fish’
/a~.ba.ga!.ha
‘this shoulder’
c.
penultimate stress; final syllable is closed
di!.li/
‘no, not’
tu!./ug
‘lie down’
ta.ma!.tis
‘tomato’
ti~g.man.sa!.nas
‘fond of apples’
d.
final stress
pa.li!t
wa.la!/
ba.la!y
pa~.ra.sa!n
pag.pa~.hu.wa!m
ba.to!
si.ya!
da.ko!
ka~./u.sa!
pa~g.da.la!
/i.ka~.du.ha!
‘buy’
‘not, nothing’
‘house’
‘vineyard’
‘IMP-CAUS-borrow’
‘rock’
‘s/he’
‘large’
‘once’
‘IMP-bring’
‘second’
PROBLEM: Are there are any true right-to-left iambic systems, and, if there aren’t,
why should such a gap exist? Which principle makes their occurrence marked
cross-linguistically? Moreover, if this gap is accidental, what does the preference
for the left edge of the word indicate about language processing and the structure
of the human mind?
4.2.3. Syllabic (even) Iambs
This foot type is taken to be extremely marked. Kager (2007), based on the typological
research conducted by Gordon (2002), states that the stress typology resulting from the
OT constraints predicts stress systems which are typologically unattested:
(32)
QUANTITY INSENSITIVE IAMBS
9 languages
LEFT-TO-RIGHT
4 languages
a.
b.
5
APF
(σ!σ)(σ~σ)
(σ!σ)(σ~σ)σσ
3 languages
(e.g. Araucanian)
RIGHT-TO-LEFT
5 languages
c.
d.
(σ~σ)(σ!σ)
σ(σ~σ)(σ!σ)
unattested
= active punctual future/subjunctive.
strictly binary feet
page 48
e.
f.
Stress from a typological perspective
(σ!σ)(σ~σ)
(σ!σ)(σ~σ)(σ~)
g.
h.
(σ~σ)(σ!σ)
(σ~)(σ~σ)(σ!σ)
1 language
(e.g. Ojibwa)
binary and unary
(degenerate) feet
5 languages
(e.g. Weri)
Altshuler (to appear) provides an analysis of Osage (Siouan, part of the Dhegiha
subgroup; Quintero 2004, et seq.), which is typologically extraordinary because it is one
of the very few clear-cut cases of QI iambic feet.
(33)
a.
b.
/na‡…-xo‡/
→
by.foot-break
[na‡…-xo‡!]
‘break by foot’
(HL!)
/A-Ale…/
[A…le!…]
‘I left’
(HH!)
→
A1SG-leave
⌦ Osage draws a distinction between heavy and light syllables but yet uses QI rightheaded feet. This inconsistency clearly suggests that the moraic make-up of the syllables
is not exploited for stress-related purposes, which, in turn, is taken to constitute a clearcut indication that syllabic iambs can exist even in languages with quantitative
distinctions.
4.3. Getting away with the ITL?
4.3.1. Kager (1993): Alternatives to the Iambic-Trochaic Law
Basic elements of Kager’s theory:
Iambic-Trochaic asymmetry originates from sonority asymmetry of bimoraic syllables,
rather than from an extralinguistic principle such as the ITL.
Distinction between parsing feet, which are strinctly binary and symmetric, and surface
feet, which need not be strictly binary and symmetric:
(34)
moraic iamb uneven iamb
. (x .)
(. x .)
µ µµ
→
µ µµ
| |/
| |/
σ1 σ2
σ1 σ2
Exhaustivity (under a Strict Layer Hypothesis, Selkirk 1984; Nespor and Vogel 1986),
which is achieved by various mechanisms such as stray adjunction (see (34), where the
parsing moraic iambic foot gives rise to an uneven iamb on the surface).
Q: Why is lengthening more popular with iambs than trochees?
A: Rhythmic principles which operate to recuperate clashes and lapses are responsible
for this length asymmetry:
[Note: Clash: two adjacent stressed elements; Lapse: two adjacent unstressed
elements.]
(35)
a.
iamb
(. x)
µ µ
| |
σ1 σ2
→
(. x .)
µ µµ
| |/
σ1 σ2
no lapse
b.
trochee
(x .)
µ µ →
| |
σ1 σ2
(x . .)
µµ µ
|/ |
σ1 σ2
lapse!
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 49
Cf. Kager’s (1999: 174) RHYTHM-CONTOUR constraint in (36), which is taken to be
responsible for the inherent asymmentry between trochees and iambs.
(36)
RHYTHM-CONTOUR: A foot must end in a strong-weak contour at the moraic level.
Q: Why are R→L iambs marked/uncommon/rare?
A: Kager (1993): because they are rhythmically complex. Hayes’ ITL does not provide a
real explanation.
Uneven iamb and moraic iamb (plus rhythmic principles) compared:
L→R iambic systems
(37)
a.
uneven iambs
(. *) (.*)(*) (.*)(. *)
µ µµ µ µ µµ µ µ µ µµ
| |/ | | |/ | | | |/
σσ σσσ σσσσ
´ same results
b.
moraic iambs
. (*.)(.*)(*) (.*) . (*.)
µ µµ µ µ µµ µ µ µ µµ
| |/ | | |/ | | | |/
σσ σσσ σσσσ
R→L iambic systems
(38)
a.
uneven iambs
(. *) (. *) (.*) (. *)
µ µµ µ µ µµ µ µ µ µµ
| |/ | | |/ | | | |/
σσ σσσ σ σσσ
b.
moraic iambs
. (*.) . . (*.)(.*) . (*.)
µ µµ µ µ µµ µ µ µ µµ skip and lapse
| |/ | | |/ | | | |/
σσ σσσ σ σσσ
b’.
. (*.)(. *)(*.)(.*) . (*.)
µ µµ µ µ µµ µ µ µ µµ skip and clash
| |/ | | |/ | | | |/
σσ σσσ σσ σσ
´ different results
R→L iambs also invoke non-peripheral degenerate feet due to the high priority they
assign to exhaustivity ´ rhythmically complex. Example: Tübatulabal (see Section
4.2.2.)
(39)
a.
b.
wÈ!taNha!tala!abatsu!
ta!aha!wila!
(40)
a.
. (. *) . (*.)(.*) skip and
µ µ µ µ µµ µ µ lapse
| | | | |/ | |
σ σ σ σ σ σσ
wÈtaNhatalaabatsu
b.
(41)
a.
(*.) . (.*)
µµ µ µ µ
|/ | | |
σ σ σ σ
taa ha wi la
b.
lapse
‘away from the Tejon Indians’
‘the summer-OBJ’
(*)(. *) . (*.)(.*)
µ µ µ µ µµ µ µ
| | | | |/ | |
σ σ σ σ σ σσ
wÈtaNhatalaabatsu
(*.)(*)(. *)
µµ µ µ µ
|/ | | |
σ σ σ σ
taa ha wi la
degenerate
foot
degenerate foot
Iambic lengthening is not triggered by the ITL but rather by rhythmic principles, i.e.
clash. Example: pretonic lengthening in Cayuga (Foster 1982):
page 50
(42)
a.
b.
Stress from a typological perspective
/hoyane//
hoya!…ne/
/he¶natowas/ hena~…to!…was
‘chief’
‘they’re hunting’
Open PU syllables lengthen in Cayuga.
(43)
a.
(.*)(*.)
µ µ µµ <µ> →
| | |/ |
he¶nato…was
b.
(.*.) (*.)
µ µµ µµ <µ>
| |/ |/ |
hena~…to!…was
The ITL excludes the existence of syllabic iambs, which are, nevertheless, attested,
e.g. Osage (see Section 4.2.3.).
Vowel reduction (predicted by the ITL) does not improve the shape of iambs; on the
contrary, it has the opposite effect since it turns canonical (uneven) iambs into noncanonical (even) ones:
(44)
Eastern Ojibwa (Piggott 1980, 1983)
(. *) (*)(.*)
µ µµ µµ µ µ µ
| |/ |/ | | |
(Note: Hayes 1995 attributes final secondary stress to phonetic
oda…we…wigamigw
final lengthening)
[da~…we!…ga~mi~k]
Moreover, vowel reduction is common in trochaic systems (see Section 4.3.3).
(-) The ITL is not needed; independently motivated rhythmic principles can
account for trochaic/iambic asymmetry and lengthening effects commonly
associated with iambs.
4.3.1.1. Polga!rdi (1995): Iambic lengthening is not moraic
Lengthening as mora addition: (a) Hayes (1995): ITL; (b) Kager (1993): clash and
lapse avoidance
Polga!rdi: Lengthening does not involve mora addition primarily because it violates
structure preservation (Kiparsky 1985).
PROPOSAL: Foot inventory is symmetrical (Kager 1993). Lengthening is phonetic.
Argumentation #1: Stress-induced lengthening; Hixkaryana (Hayes 1995)
o Hixkaryana lacks underlying vowel length contrasts; Hayes (1995) proposes a
rule of Iambic Lengthening (IL, see (11)).
o
IL is problematic because: (a) it is not a structure preserving rule → IL must be a
postlexical rule, (b) there exists no phonological (or other rule) that refers to the
added length.
o
Lengthening is attested in disyllabic words assuming either a final syllable
extrametricality, e.g. (σ!)<σ> or a trochaic foot, e.g. (σ!σ). In the former case,
lengthening does not serve the enhancement of durational contrast, while in the
latter case, lengthening is taken to affect a trochaic foot. (This argument is taken
from van de Vijver 1998: 31).
Argumentation #2: Lengthening in clash; Cayuga (Kager 1993)
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 51
Kager (1993):
- Clash: two adjacent stressed elements; Lapse: two adjacent unstressed elements
- Lengthening is mora addition:
(45)
a.
(. x)
µ µ
| |
he¶na
(x.)
µµ <µ>
|/
|
too was
b.
→
(. x .) (x.)
µ µµ µµ <µ>
| |/ |/
|
he¶naa too was
- Lapse avoidance accounts for the absence of lengthening in trochaic systems:
(46)
a.
iamb
(. x)
µ µ
| |
σ1 σ2
b.
→
(. x .)
µ µµ
| |/
σ1 σ2
well-formed
trochee
(x .)
µ µ →
| |
σ1 σ2
(x . .)
µµ µ
|/ |
σ1 σ2
lapse!
Polga!rdi: For Kager (1993), domain of lapse is the foot whereas domain of clash is the
PrW due to the SLH he adopts. Under the WLH (Itô and Mester 1992), however, the
domain for both rules is the PrW. But now the argument falls apart, since lengthening as
mora addition will create a lapse in an iambic system too.
(47)
a.
lengthened trochee
(x . .)
µµ µ
|/ |
σ1 σ2
lapse!
b.
lengthened iamb
(. x .) (. x .)
µ µµ µ µµ
| |/
| |/
σ1 σ2 σ3 σ4
lapse!
& If we assume that lengthening is phonetic, no such problems arise.
Q: Why should lengthening be confined to iambic systems? Polga!rdi’s A: Because of the
ITL.
(+) The ITL is desirable; it can account for phonetic lengthening in iambic
systems. [See, however, discussion in Section 4.3.3]
4.3.2. The psychological reality of the ITL rule
Hayes (1995): Psychological experiments on rhythmic grouping (Bolton 1894;
Woodrow 1909, 1951, among others) lend support to the ITL.
Woodrow (1951: 1233): “… with equal temporal spacing, a regularly recurring,
relatively greater intensity exerts a group-beginning effect, and a regularly recurring,
relatively greater duration a group-ending effect.”
PROBLEMS/SHORTCOMINGS:
Rice (1992: 187): “The absence of “strongly rhythmical objective characteristics”
(Woodrow 1951:1233) opens the door to the influence of subjective factors.
Rice (1992, ch. 5) designed an experiment in order to investigate the “correlations
between variations in pitch and length with tendencies to parse a string iambically or
trochaically.”
page 52
Stress from a typological perspective
Design of experiment – stimuli: The stimuli were organized into 4 groups:
Group 1: absolute length of tones varies (strings of tones of identical pitch and length).
Length of silence = length of tone.
Group 2: the relative length of tones varies whereas pitch and length of intervening
silence are kept constant.
Group 3: length and pitch of tones is constant whereas length of silence varies.
Group 4: length of tones and silence is equal; two pitches for tones are used in an
alternating fashion.
Results:
o Group
o Group
o Group
o Group
&
1:
2:
3:
4:
Strong tendency for trochaic parsings
Great tendency for iambic parsings
See Group 1 – trochaic parsings
Iambic groupings
Manipulation of relative pitches (i.e. a variable other than length), leads to an iambic
pattern!
(-) Not only duration but also pitch may lead to iambic groupings ¼ ITL is not
the only source for the emergence of uneven durational contrasts.
4.3.3. Some predictions of the ITL and empirical counter-evidence
Asymmetric foot typology: The ITL is a rhythmic principle that exerts influence on the
typology of metrical templates and, by extension, on the internal formal principles of the
linguistic system (Hayes 1995:81). Trochaic systems are expected to have durationally
even feet whereas iambic systems are expected to have durationally uneven feet.
Iambic systems:
To achieve the canonical uneven iambic shape, the second syllable in an even
iamb may be augmented either by vowel lengthening or by gemination of the
following consonant. Durational contrasts in iambic feet can also be achieved
when the first (weak) syllable of the foot undergoes vowel reduction.
Trochaic systems:
Vowel reduction is functionally motivated in moraic trochee languages as well but
only when an uneven trochee, e.g. (µ!µ µ), would arise (trochaic shortening).
Moreover, vowel shortening, expressed either as reduction or deletion, is claimed
to be a general phonological or even phonetic characteristic of quantity sensitive
(iambic and trochaic) systems and hence absent in syllabic trochee systems.
Lengthening in trochaic systems is typically phonetic in character (see also Polga!!rdi
(1995), who claims the same for iambic systems) and limited to the main stressed
syllable only (e.g. Icelandic, Wargamay). There seems to exist a threshold, around 1.52.0, for the duration ratio needed to induce iambic grouping whereas lower degrees of
lengthening are typical for trochaic languages. It is worth pointing out, however, that
trochaic languages with comparable or even longer durational contrasts have also been
reported.6
6
See Revithiadou and van de Vijver (1997) for Greek in which stressed vowels are reported to be
on average 1.4 times longer than their unstressed counterparts, and Goedemans (1997) for
Mathimathi in which primary and secondary stressed vowels are reported to be on average 2.7
times and 1.5 times, respectively, longer than unstressed ones.
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 53
PROBLEMS:
Revithiadou and van de Vijver (1997), van de Vijver (1998), Revithiadou (2004): The
ITL does not make the right empirical predictions with respect to stress-related
segmental processes (i.e. lengthening and shortening) in trochaic systems and,
therefore, should be dispensed with. The evidence presented below comes to
complement Kager’s (1993) claim that quantitative asymmetries between iambic and
trochaic systems can be accounted for without reference to the ITL.
Some representative examples:
Lengthening (or sonority enhancement) in trochaic systems
Chimalapa Zoque (Mixe-Zoque language spoken in Mexico; Knudson 1975; Hayes
1995; McGarrity 2003) is a bi-directional trochaic system (McGarrity 2003): Primary
stress is assigned at the right edge, while secondary stress is assigned at the left edge.
Hayes (1995:104) analyzes Chimalapa Zoque as a syllabic trochee system. The example
in (48a), however, suggests that CVC syllables count as heavy and attract stress.
Interestingly, a general process lengthens all stressed vowels in open syllables no matter
whether they bear primary or secondary stress. Vowel length is not contrastive in the
language, therefore all long vowels are derived by this rule.
(48)
&
Chimalapa Zoque (McCarrity 2003:107)
a.
mi$nke!/tpa
‘he is coming again’
b.
mi$nsukke!/tpa
‘they are coming again’
c.
mi$nsukke/tpa/i!tti
‘they were going to come again’
d.
ho!˘ho
‘palm tree’
e.
hu˘$ku!˘ti
‘fire’
To account for the pattern of stressed vowel lengthening in Chimalapa Zoque, it is
necessary to appeal to a general principle that requires stressed syllables to be
heavy, (CVV, CVC), regardless of foot structure. Trochaic lengthening cannot be
ascribed to a principle that governs foot wellformedness such as the ITL because
uneven trochees score worse than even ones.
Earlier Egyptian (Loprieno 1995): Long vowels appear only in open stressed syllables
(49a); short vowels appear in closed syllables and in open unstressed ones (49b).
(49)
a.
ra!….mac
sVt.pa!….ku
wap.wu!….tij
‘man’ L36
‘I chose’ L36
‘messenger’ L37
b.
jaf.da!w
wa.ba!X
Xu.pi!r.waw
‘four’ L37
‘to become white’ L37
‘transformations’ L37
Sahidic Coptic7 (Reintges 2004): The vowels /E, O, o, u/ are licensed only under stress
whereas the vowels /e, a/ occur both in stressed and unstressed positions. The range of
unstressed vowels is confined to the set /i, e, a, ´/.
(50)
7
a.
u!….tah
sO!….t´m
Ôa!….ba/
‘fruit’ R29
‘to hear’ R29
‘to seal’ L44
Earlier Egyptian is the language of the ‘Old Kingdom’ (2800-2150 BC) whereas Later Egyptian is
the language of the ‘New Kingdom’ (1550-1000 BC). Sahidic Coptic reflects the upper Egyptian
variety of the language and is documented from the fourth century CE.
page 54
b.
Stress from a typological perspective
Sa!f.te
a.ma!h.te
Ôa!r.jaw
‘enemy’ R34
‘to prevail’ R34
‘he is strong’ L49
Stress is usually on the penultimate syllable, e.g. Sahidic Coptic: ke.le!n.keh ‘elbow’,
u!….tah ‘nine’, af.ra!….Se ‘he rejoiced’ → a syllabic trochee is built at the right edge of the
word. Given that vowel length has been argued to be non phonological (Edgerton 1947;
Loprieno 1995; Reintges 2004), vowel lengthening is taken to be a phonetic effect of
stress which was probably phonologized in the language.
&
The syllable types allowed in unstressed positions, /CV, CVC/, constitute only a
subset of the syllable patterns allowed in stressed positions, /CV!…, CV!C, CV!CC#/
Livisi (Asia Minor Greek branch, Andriotis 1961): ‘Antikofosi’, or else, high vowel
lowering (HVL).
(51)
o
Mid and high vowels are in complementary distribution: mid vowels occur only
under stress and high vowels elsewhere.
´ High vowels lower to their corresponding mid ones only under stress.
o
Unstressed high vowels, /i, u/ delete and unstressed mid vowels /e, o/ raise
to [i, u], respectively.
stressed high vowel lowering (Andriotis 1961: 28-31)
a.
e! < i!
underlying forms
iDe!psasa
e(Di!psa)sa
‘be thirsty-1SG.PAST’
e!Drona
(i!Dro)na
‘sweat-1SG.PAST’
fe!laksa
(fi!la)ksa
‘watch over-1SG.PAST’
b.
o! < u!
vo!tus
po!lakas (AUGM)
c.
suffix /-i/ > [-e] when stressed
Vjatr-e!
Vja(tr-i!)
Vambr-e!
Vam(br-i!)
aft-e!
a(ft-i!)
aθro!p-i
‘doctor-NOM.PL’
‘groom-NOM.PL’
‘this-NOM.PL’
‘man-NOM.PL’
suffix /-us/ > [-os] when stressed
Vabr-o!s
Vam(br-u!s)
ftux-o!s
fto(x-u!s)
rumj-o!s
ro(mj-u!s)
aθro!p-us
‘groom-ACC.PL’
‘poor-ACC.PL’
‘Greek-ACC.PL’
‘man-ACC.PL’
cf.
d.
cf.
(52)
(vu!tos)
pu(l’i!)
unstressed mid vowel raising
a.
ple!ruma
(pli!ro)ma
b.
fo!ndus
(fu!ndos)
‘dive’
‘bird’
‘payment’
‘bottom’
Ewen and van der Hulst (2001) view vowels as being composed of basic particles or
elements, in accordance with versions of dependency phonology (Anderson and Ewen
1987) and government phonology (Kaye et al. 1985). According to these theories, the
basic units are unary features [I, A, U] which can occur separately or in combination.
Non-peripheral (i.e. mid) vowels are more complex than peripheral ones because they
are branching. For instance, an /e/ is a combination of an A and an I feature whereas an
/o/ is a combination of an A and a U feature. In the examples discussed here, the
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 55
generalization is that vowels with branching structures are permitted only in foot-head
position, i.e. the stressed syllable (Dresher and van der Hulst 1998).
In Optimality-Theoretic terms (Prince and Smolensky 1993), HVL in stressed positions
can be accounted for by means of the peak prominence scale in (52), originally proposed
by Prince and Smolensky (1993) for syllabification and later modified for sonority-driven
stress by Kenstowicz (1994). The scale evaluates candidate peaks from ‘worst to best’
and, in simple words, it states that non-sonorous vowels should not appear in a stressed
position.
(53)
peak prominence scale (Kenstowicz 1994: 4)
*Peak/´ >> *Peak/i,u >> *Peak/e,o >> *Peak/a
Loose translation: “Best peak is /a/, worst peak is /´/.”
Reduction in QS trochee systems
In Biyya…D‚iy and Axrasiy Arabic (dialects spoken by Bedouin tribes in the northwest of
Sinai; De Jong 2000), moraic trochees are built from left to right. Primary stress is
assigned to the rightmost foot. Final consonant extrametricality holds in these dialects,
as expected. The data in (54) are taken from De Jong (2000: 346-347).
(54)
left-to-right moraic trochees in Biyya…D‚iy and Axrasiy Arabic
a.
HHL
(bi!d)dha
‘she wants’
(Suf)(tu!…)<h>
‘you-MASC.PL saw him’
b.
HLL
c.
LLLL
(me…)(da!na)
(mad)(ra!sa)
(il)(ta!fa)<t>
(xa!da)tu
(masa)(ka!tu)
(D‚ara)(ba!tu)
‘minaret’
‘school’
‘he looked back’
‘she took it-MASC.SG’
‘she took it’
‘she hit him’
High vowels /i, u/ are elided in unstressed open syllables:
(55)
unstressed high vowel deletion
a.
(Si!ri)bi<t>
b.
(ni!ki)di<h>
c.
(min)(ta!Si)ri<h>
[Si!rbit]
[ni!kdih]
[minta!Srih]
‘she drank’
‘troublesome-FEM.SG’
‘wide-spread’
Claim: Reduction aims at optimizing the foot structure: [µ! µ] → [µ!µ]. Such a change
involves no loss of moraic material while, at the same time, it satisfies the condition that
heavy syllables constitute better peaks for stress. Even under this interpretation,
however, unstressed vowel elision poses a serious threat to the ITL. If weak/unstressed
vowels lose part or all of their quantity in iambic languages in order to improve the
durational contrast within the foot, then the triggering force for reduction in trochaic
systems could be the same: optimization of durational contrasts. Such an explanation,
however, challenges one of the basic premises of the ITL, namely that trochaic groupings
are not contrast-driven.
&
Trochaic lengthening discriminates between L and H syllables in favor of the latter
suggesting that duration does matter for foot headedness in moraic trochee systems.
page 56
Stress from a typological perspective
Reduction in QI trochee systems
HVD is also found in dialectal branches of Asia Minor Greek and, more specifically, in
Pontic (Papadopoulos 1955), Farasa (Dawkins 1916; Andriotis 1948) and Kouvoukliotika
(Deligiannis 2002):
(56)
unstressed high vowel deletion
a.
Pontic (Papadopoulos 1955:18)
fe!rsmon
(fe!rsi)mon
aθro!ps
a(θro!pus)
‘behavior’
‘man-ACC.PL’
b.
Farasa (Andriotis 1948:23)
pa!tse
(pa!ti)se
ro!tsan
(ro!ti)san
‘step-2SG.PAST’
‘ask-3PL.PAST’
c.
Kouvoukliotika (Deligiannis 2002:52)
axu!r
a(xu!ri)
kolvo!zmos
(koli)(vo!zu)mos
‘hole’
‘boiled wheat juice’
Revithiadou and van de Vijver (1997) attribute lengthening and shortening phenomena
in trochaic languages to two different principles:
o
o
&
Stress and Length Principle (SLP)
Domain Final Lengthening Principle (DFLP)
Lengthening of foot-heads in iambic systems results from the combined effects of
these two principles. This explains why there is a cross-linguistic preference for
uneven length in iambs. On the other hand, lengthening in trochaic systems is due
to the SLP (=a compilation of markedness constraints that favor augmentation in
stressed positions and reduction in unstressed ones). DFLP counter-balances
unstressed vowel reduction yielding a preference for isochronic elements in trochaic
feet.
(57)
(σσ)
µ¶
µ
SLP
DFLP
FAVORED FEET
LL
(σσ)
¶µ
µ
LH
McGarrity proposes the following typology for lengthening under stress:
Pool of relevant constraints:
(58)
a.
b.
STRESS-TO-WEIGHT PRINCIPLE (S-to-W):8 Stressed syllables must be heavy.
DEP-µ: A mora in the output must have a correspondent in the input.
(= no mora insertion)
Ranking for non-lengthening effects: DEP-µ » S-to-W
Ranking for lengthening effects: S-to-W » DEP-µ
Legthening in Chimalapa Zoque (McCarrity 2003:107-110):
(59)
8
Chimalapa Zoque
a.
mi$nke!/tpa
b.
mi$nsukke!/tpa
‘he is coming again’
‘they are coming again’
See Myers (1987); Prince (1990) and Riad (1992).
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
c.
d.
e.
mi$nsukke/tpa/i!tti
ho!˘ho
hu˘$ku!˘ti
page 57
‘they were going to come again’
‘palm tree’
‘fire’
This is a bidirectional trochaic system in which only one secondary stress foot is
constructed. Primary stress is on the PU; secondary stress is on the initial syllable, even
if subminimal.
´ RIGHTMOST » ALL-FT-L » PARSE-σ » FTBIN
Lengthening is achieved by the ranking:
´ S-to-W » DEP-µ
(60)
/hukutÈ/
& a. (hu~…)(ku!…tÈ)
b. (hu~)(ku!…tÈ)
c. hu(ku!tÈ)
RIGHTMOST
S-to-W
*!
**!
ALL-FT-L
*
*
*
PARSE-σ
FTBIN
*
DEP-µ
**
*
*
(-) The ITL is not empirically substantiated.
# Thought exercise 3: Consider the following data from Tiriyo@ (Cariban, spoken at
both sides of the Brazilian-Surinamese border; Meirá 1996; van de Vijver 1998: 92). In
Tiriyo!, length is phonemic and inherently long vowels can appear anywhere. However,
stressed syllables are longer than unstressed ones. Note that stress is realized as high
pitch.
Provide an analysis of the Tiriyo! stress data taking also into consideration Rice’s
(1992) findings that pitch-accented syllables tend to interpreted as longer than other
syllables.
(61)
a.
three syllables:
[email protected]
ta.r´@´.no
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
‘house’
‘Tiriyo@ people’
‘fan, stingray’
‘butterfly’
‘crocodile’
b.
four syllables:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
‘monkey’
‘chin’
‘you helped’
‘electric eel’
c.
five syllables:
[email protected]´@´.k´
[email protected]@u.tu
ne.mú[email protected]
‘tick’
‘cloud’
‘it wrinkled’
six syllables:
[email protected]@a.t´.ne
[email protected]@a.t´.k´
kˆ[email protected]@o.ma.ti
‘you all helped’
‘you all give it!’
‘we all help’
d.
page 58
e.
f.
Stress from a typological perspective
seven syllables:
yi.kˆ@ˆ.rˆ.kˆ@ˆ.rˆ[email protected]ˆ
[email protected]@a.ta.t´@´.k´
[email protected]@a.ta.t´@´.k´
‘I shivered’
‘you all go give it’
‘you all help’
eight syllables:
kˆ[email protected]@[email protected]´.ne
‘we all made him/her help’
4.3.4. ITL motivates constraints for trochaic/iambic asymmetry
Hyde (2007) proposes that the following two constraints can account for the rhythmic
markedness of iambic feet compared to trochaic ones:
(62)
a.
b.
c.
(63)
a.
b.
c.
d.
&
INITIAL GRIDMARK (Prince 1983): The initial element in a domain is stressed.
INITGRID(XF, σ, ω): A foot-level gridmark occurs over the initial syllable of
the PrW.
INITGRID(XF, σ, F): A foot-level gridmark occurs over the initial syllable of
the foot.
NONFINALITY (Prince and Smolensky 1993): The final element in a domain
is stressless.
NONFIN(XF, σ, ω): No foot-level gridmark occurs over the final syllable of a
PrW.
NONFIN(XF, σ, F): No foot-level gridmark occurs over the final syllable of a
foot.
NONFIN(XF, µ, F): No foot-level gridmark occurs over the final mora of a
foot.
Hyde (2007: 1): “Iambic footing is marked because it tends to result in initial
stresslessness and final stress.”
(64)
σ!σ
INITGRID(XF, σ, F)
NONFIN(XF, σ, F)
(
σσ!
2
2
σ!
2
LL!
L!L
σ!σ » σ!! » σσ!
(65)
LH!
NONFIN(XF, µ, F)
(
LH!, L!L
»
2
LL!
(+) The ITL motivates constraints that can account for the trochaic/iambic
asymmetry.
References
Altshuler, D. (To appear) Quantity insensitive iambs in Osage. International Journal of American
Linguistics.
Anderson, J. M. and C. J. Ewen (1987). Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 59
Andriotis, N.P. (1948). To Glossiko Idioma ton Farason. [The dialect of Farasa.] 8 Collection de l’
Institute Français d’ Athenes. Mousiko Laografiko Archeio, Archeio Mikrasiatikis Laografias,
tomos 4: Kappadokia 2. Ikaros, Athens.
Andriotis, N. P. (1961). To Idioma tu Livisiou Lykias. [The idiom of Livisi of Lykia.] Kentro
Mikrasiatiko Spoudon, Athens.
Blanc, H. (1970). The Arabic dialect of the Negev Bedouins. Proceedings of the Israeli Academy of
Sciences and Humanities 4.7, pp. 112-150.
Blevins, J. (1990). Alternatives to exhaustivity and conflation in metrical theory. Ms., Dept. of
Linguistics, University of Texas, Austin.
Bolton, T. L. (1894). Rhythm. American Journal of Psychology 6, 145-238.
Dawkins, R. M. (1916). Modern Greek in Asia Minor. University Press, Cambridge.
Derbyshire, D. C. (1979). Hixkaryana. In B. Comrie and N. Smith, eds., Lingua Descriptive Studies
1. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Derbyshire, D.C. (1985). Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology. SIL Publications in Linguistics 76,
Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas.
De Jong, R. E. (2000). A Grammar of the Bedouin Dialects of the Northern Sinai Littoral: Bridging
the Linguistic Gap between the Eastern and Western Arab World. Brill, Leiden, Boston and
Köln.
Deligiannis, K. (2002). Kouvoukliotika: To Glossiko idioma ton
[Kouvoukliotika: the dialect of Kouvouklia of Prousa.] Adelaida.
Kouvouklion
Prousas.
Dresher, B. E. and H. van der Hulst (1998). Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology:
Complexity and visibility. Phonology 15, 317-352.
Edgerton, W. F. (1947). Stress, vowel quantity, and syllable division in Egyptian. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 6, 1-17.
Ewen, C.J. and H. van der Hulst (2001). The Phonological Structure of Words: An Introduction.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Foster, M. K. (1982). Alternating weak and strong syllables in Cayuga words. International Journal
of American Linguistics 49, 59-72.
Goddard, I. (1979). Delaware Verbal Morphology, Garland Publishing, New York.
Goddard, I. (1982). The historical morphology of Munsee. International Journal of American
Linguistics 48, 16-48.
Goedemans, R. W. N. (1997). Putting the Mathimathi stress rule in its proper perspective.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 17, 43-69.
Gordon, M. (2002). A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 20, 491-552.
Hayes, B. (1987). A revised parametric metrical theory. Northeastern Linguistic Society 17, 274289.
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago and London.
Hulst, H, van der (1999). Word stress. In H. van de Hulst, ed., Word Prosodic Systems in the
Languages of Europe. Mouton de Gryuter, Berlin and New York, pp. 3-115.
Hyde, B. (2007). The rhythmic foundations of INITIAL GRIDMARK and NONFINALITY. Ms., Washington
University.
Itô, J. & A. Mester (1992). Weak layering and words binarity. Linguistics Research Center Report
LRC-92-09, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Kager, R. (1991). The moraic iamb. In L. Nichols, R. Rodriguez and L. Dobrin, eds., Proceedings of
the Chicago Linguistics Society 27, vol. 1.
Kager, R. (1993). Alternatives to the Iambic-Trochaic Law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
11, 381-432.
page 60
Stress from a typological perspective
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kager, R. (2007). Feet and metrical stress. In P. de Lacy, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of
Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 195-227.
Kaye, J. D., J. Lowenstamm and J.-R. Vergnaud (1985). The internal structure of phonological
elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2, 305-328.
Kenstowicz, M. (1983). Parametric variation and accent in the Arabic dialects. Chicago Linguistic
Society 19, 205-213.
Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Sonority-driven stress. Ms., MIT.
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 82-138.
Knudson, L. M. (1975). A natural phonology and morphophonemics of Chimalapa Zoque. Papers in
Linguistics 8, 283-346.
Loprieno, A. (1995). Ancient Egyptian: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
McGarrity, L. W. (2003). Constraints on patterns of primary and secondary stress. Doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University.
Meira!, S. (1996). Rhythmic stress in Tiriyo!. Ms., Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 485518.
Nespor, M. and I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Foris, Dordrecht.
Papadopoulos, A. Α. (1955). Istoriki grammatiki tis pontikis dialektou. [Historical grammar of the
Pontic dialect.] Epitropi Pontiakon Meleton, Periodikou “Archeion Pontou”. Parartima 1,
Athens.
Piggott, G. L. (1980). Aspects of Odawa Morphophonemics. Garland Publishing, New York.
Piggott, G. L. (1983). Extrametricality and Ojibwa stress. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 1,
80-117.
Polga!rdi, K. (1995). Iambic lengthening: Phonetics or phonology? In Van der Hulst, H. and J. van
de Weijer, eds., Leiden in Last: Proceedings of the First HIL Phonology Conference. Holland
Academic Graphics, The Hague, pp. 355-368.
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 19-100.
Prince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske
and K. Deaton, eds., Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago
Linguistics Society, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 355-398.
Prince, A. and P. Smolensky, (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative
Grammar, Report no. RuCCS-TR-2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Quintero, C. (2004). Osage Grammar. University of Nebraska Press.
Reintges, C. H. (2004). Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic dialect): A Learner’s Grammar. Rüdige Köppe
Verlag, Köln.
Revithiadou, A. (2004). The Iambic/Trochaic Law revisited: Lengthening and shortening in trochaic
systems. In B. Arsenijevic , N. Elouazizi, M. Salzmann and M. de Vos, eds., Leiden Papers
in Linguistics 1.1, Leiden Universiteit/ULCL, Leiden, pp. 37-62. [ULCL - LPL 1.1, ISSN
1574-4728]
Revithiadou, A. and R. van de Vijver (1997). Durational contrasts and the Iambic/Trochaic Law. In
V. Samiian, ed., Proceedings of WECOL. Department of Linguistics, California State
University, Fresno, CA, pp. 229-242.
Riad, T. (1992). Structures in Germanic prosody: A diachronic study with special reference to
Nordic languages. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University.
Rice, C. (1992). Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: Parametric extensions. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Anthi Revithiadou – University of the Aegean
page 61
Shryock, A. (1993). A metrical analysis of stress in Cebuano. Lingua 91, 103-148.
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Vijver, R., van de (1998). The iambic issue: Iambs as the result of constraint interaction. Doctoral
dissertation, HIL Dissertation Series 37. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.
Voegelin, C. (1935). Tübatulabal Grammar. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 34, no. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 55189.
Voegelin, C. and F. Voegelin (1977). Is Tübatulabal de-acquisition relevant to theories of language
acquisition? International Journal of American Linguistics 43, 333-338.
Wheeler, D. (1979a). A metrical analysis of stress and related processes in Southern Paiute and
Tübatulabal. University of Massachusetts Occasinal Papers in Linguistics 5, 145-175.
Wheeler, D. (1979b). A historical explanation for final stress in Tübatulabal. In E. Engdahl and M.
Stein, eds., Papers Presented to Emmon Bach by his Students, GLSA, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Woodrow, H. (1951). Time perception. In S. S. Stevens, ed., Handbook of Experimental
Psychology, Wiley, New York, pp. 1234-1236.
______________________________________
Anthi Revithiadou
University of the Aegean
Department of Mediterranean Studies
1 Demokratias Ave
85100, GR-Rhodes
email: [email protected]
URL: www.revithiadou.gr
June 2008