1887
Volume 39, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919

Abstract

Abstract

Expressing syllable weight by moras leads to two problems. First, there are languages, such as Wolof, with long vowels and geminates, which both make a syllable bimoraic, but where only long vowels, but not geminates, count as heavy for stress. Second, there are languages in which closed syllables are light for stress, but heavy for segmental modifications (laryngeal metathesis in Cayuga and degemination in Chugach Alutiiq). It is argued that a two-layered mora model is not required and that a straightforward Harmonic Serialism is able to directly express that laryngeal metathesis and degemination make an unstressed syllable light.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00064.jac
2022-11-04
2024-03-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/avt.00064.jac.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00064.jac&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Altshuler, Daniel
    2009 “Quantity-Insensitive Iambs in Osage.” International Journal of American Linguistics75 (3): 365–398. 10.1086/605417
    https://doi.org/10.1086/605417 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, Arthur
    2003 “Gemination, Degemination and Moraic Structure in Wolof.” Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory151: 1–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Foster, Michael
    1982 “Weak and Strong Syllables in Cayuga Words.” International Journal of American Linguistics481: 59–72. 10.1086/465713
    https://doi.org/10.1086/465713 [Google Scholar]
  4. Hayes, Bruce
    1995Metrical stress theory. Principles and case studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jacobson, Steven A.
    1985 “Siberian Yupik and Central Yupik Prosody.” Yupik Eskimo Prosodic Systems: Descriptive and Comparative Studiesed. byMichael Kraus. 25–45. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ka, Omar
    1988 “Wolof Syllable Structure: Evidence from a Secret Code.” Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguisticsed. byJoyce Powers and Kenneth de Jong. 261–274. Columbus: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kager, René
    1992 “Are there any truly quantity-insensitive systems?” Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. byLaura Buszard-Welcher, Jonathan Evans, David Peterson, Lionel Wee and Wiliam Wiegel. Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield. 10.3765/bls.v18i1.3376
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v18i1.3376 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kraehenmann, Astrid
    2001 “Swiss German Stops: Geminates All over the Word.” Phonology18 (1): 109–145. 10.1017/S0952675701004031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675701004031 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kraus, Michael
    1975 “St. Lawrence Island Eskimo Phonology and Orthography.” Linguistics, 1521: 39–72. 10.1515/ling.1975.13.152.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1975.13.152.39 [Google Scholar]
  10. 1985 “Supplementary Notes on Central Siberian Yupik Prosody.” Yupik Eskimo Prosodic Systems: Descriptive and Comparative Studiesed. byMichael Kraus. 47–50. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Leer, Jeff
    1985 “Toward a Metrical Interpretation of Yupik Prosody.” Yupik Eskimo Prosodic Systems: Descriptive and Comparative Studiesed. byMichael Kraus. 159–172. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. McCarthy, John
    1988 “Feature geometry and dependency: A review.” Phonetica451: 84–108. 10.1159/000261820
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000261820 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2010 “An introduction to harmonic serialism.” Language and Linguistics Compass41: 1001–1018. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00240.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00240.x [Google Scholar]
  14. McGregor, William
    1990A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.22 [Google Scholar]
  15. Michelson, Karin
    1988 A Comparative Study of Accent in Five Nations Iroquoian Languages. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2709‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2709-4
  16. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky
    1993 [2004]Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Rialland, Annie and Stéphane Robert
    2001 “The intonation system of Wolof.” Linguistics39 (5): 893–939. 10.1515/ling.2001.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.038 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryan, Kevin
    2020 “VV > VC > V for Stress: Coercion vs. Prominence.” Linguistic Inquiry51 (1): 124–139. 10.1162/ling_a_00325
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00325 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00064.jac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.00064.jac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): degemination; geminates and stress; laryngeal metathesis; syllable weight
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error