Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T16:43:50.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: layered feet and non-intervention constraints*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2016

Violeta Martínez-Paricio  and
René Kager
Violeta Martínez-Paricio*
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
René Kager*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
E-mail: violeta.martinez-paricio@ntnu.no, r.w.j.kager@uu.nl.
E-mail: violeta.martinez-paricio@ntnu.no, r.w.j.kager@uu.nl.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a novel OT analysis of ternary rhythm, using the restrictive format of McCarthy (2003)'s categorical alignment constraints, which we will refer to as ‘non-intervention constraints’, using the terminology of Ellison (1994), and argues for the rehabilitation of internally layered feet in metrical representations (i.e. feet with one layer of recursion). By means of a computer-generated factorial typology, we demonstrate that the constraint set proposed here generates the full typology of binary and ternary rhythm. The resulting typology suggests that there is no absolute boundary between binary and ternary systems; rather, a continuum emerges, such that binary and ternary feet may coexist in rhythmic stress systems.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , December 2015 , pp. 459 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper has benefited from comments from the associate editor, three anonymous reviewers and audiences at the Manchester Phonology Meeting 2013, the Annual Meeting on Phonology 2014 at MIT and the Workshop on the Formal Structure of OT Typologies 2015 at Rutgers University. It has also benefited greatly from discussion and feedback from Birgit Alber, John Alderete, Ryan Bennett, Jeroen Breteler, Gene Buckley, Patrik Bye, Junko Ito, Martin Krämer, Armin Mester and Alan Prince. Thanks to Jeroen Breteler for writing the script for generating candidate sets, and to Natalie DelBusso, Nazarré Merchant and Alan Prince for running additional simulations in OTWorkplace. For financial and scientific support, the first author is grateful to the Centre for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL) in Tromsø, where the research was carried out. The second author's research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in the framework of the project ‘Parsing and metrical structure: where phonology meets processing’ (360-89-030).

References

REFERENCES

Alber, Birgit (2005). Clash, lapse and directionality. NLLT 23. 485–542.Google Scholar
Allison, E. J. (1979). The phonology of Sibutu Sama: a language of the Southern Philippines. Studies in Philippine Languages 3:2. 63–104.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan (2012). Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan (2013). The uniqueness of metrical structure: rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano. Phonology 30. 355–398.Google Scholar
Bíró, Tamás (2003). Quadratic alignment constraints and finite state Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Finite-State Methods in Natural Language Processing (FSMNLP), 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 119–126.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Harrison, Sheldon P. (1999). Trimoraic feet in Gilbertese. Oceanic Linguistics 38. 203–230.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (1997). Optimal iambs in Kashaya. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 9–52.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2009). Locality in metrical typology. Phonology 26. 389–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2014). Kashaya extrametricality and formal symmetry. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. Washington, D.C.: Linguistic Society of America. Available at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik (1996). Scandinavian ‘level stress’ and the theory of prosodic overlay. Nordlyd 24. 23–62.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela (2008). Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela (2011). Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri. Linguistics 49. 749–790.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri (1978). Word stress in Finnish. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. NLLT 7. 167–216.Google Scholar
Cowan, H. K. J. (1965). Grammar of the Sentani language (with specimen texts and vocabulary). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, Shyamal (2001). Some aspects of the phonology of Tripura Bangla and Tripura Bangla English. PhD dissertation, CIEFL Hyderabad. Available as ROA-493 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart (1999). The parallel distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English. Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–10.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart (2005). Capitalistic v. militaristic: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–121.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Cho, Mi-Hui (2003). The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English and Korean: an alignment approach with typological implications. Linguistics 41. 607–652.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Lahiri, Aditi (1991). The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English. LI 22. 251–286.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason (1997). What constraints should OT allow? Handout from paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago. Available as ROA-204 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Nine & Kager, René (1999). Ternary rhythm and the lapse constraint. Phonology 16. 273–329.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Ellison, T. Mark (1994). Phonological derivation in Optimality Theory. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics(COLING). Kyoto. 1007–1013.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert & Satta, Giorgio (1998). Optimality Theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24. 307–315.Google Scholar
Furby, Christine (1974). Garawa phonology. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Gerdemann, Dale & van Noord, Gertjan (2000). Approximation and exactness in finite state optimality theory. In Eisner, Jason, Karttunen, Lauri & Thériault, Alain (eds.) Finite-state phonology: proceedings of the 5th Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIGPHON). Luxemburg. 34–45.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. NLLT 20. 491–552.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2003). Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Green, Anthony Dubach (1997). The prosodic structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Available as ROA-196 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1946). A grammatical sketch of Tunica. In Hoijer, Harry (ed.) Linguistic structures of Native America. New York: Viking Fund. 337–366.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1987). Hungarian cola. Phonology Yearbook 4. 267–269.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kenneth C. & Hansen, Lesley E. (1969). Pintupi phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8. 153–170.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2003). OTSoft 2.1. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2009). On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26. 303–351.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, Kobele, Greg & Riggle, Jason (2005). Exploring the typology of quantity-insensitive stress systems without gradient constraints. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland.Google Scholar
Hint, Mati (1973). Eesti keele sõnafonoloogia. [Word phonology of Estonian.] Vol. 1: Rõhusüsteemi fonoloogia ja morfofonoloogia põhiprobleeemid. [The main phonological and morphological problems of the Estonian stress system.] Tallinn: Eeste NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Houghton, Paula (2006). Ternary stress. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-836 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Houghton, Paula (2008). Positionally licensed extended lapses. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 201–212.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (2010). A note on recursion in phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.) Recursion and human language. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 301–341.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2012). Alignment constraints. NLLT 30. 789–836.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2014). Symmetries and asymmetries in secondary stress patterns. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.) Word stress: theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2007). Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 97–111.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009). The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.) Phonological domains: universals and deviations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 135–194.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, John T. (2000). Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17. 187–235.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1994). Ternary rhythm in alignment theory. Ms, Utrecht University. Available as ROA-35 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1996). Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Nespor, Marina & Smith, Norval (eds.) Dam phonology: HIL phonology papers II. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 59–101.Google Scholar
Kager, René (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Handout of paper presented at the 5th Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, Potsdam. Available as ROA-514 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kager, René (2005). Rhythmic licensing theory: an extended typology. Proceedings of the 3rd Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (SICOL). Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea. 5–31.Google Scholar
Kager, René (2012). Stress in windows: language typology and factorial typology. Lingua 122. 1454–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René & Martínez-Paricio, Violeta (2014). The internally layered foot in Dutch prosody. Paper presented at the Aspects of Germanic Prosody Workshop, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri (1998). The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. In Karttunen, Lauri & Oflazer, Kemal (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite State Methods in Natural Language Processing. Ankara: Bilkent University. 1–12.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1983). Parametric variation and accent in the Arabic dialects. CLS 19. 205–213.Google Scholar
Key, Harold H. (1961). Phonotactics of Cayuvava. IJAL 27. 143–150.Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael (ed.) (1985). Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Center.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311–340.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff (1985a). Prosody in Alutiiq (the Koniag and Chugach dialects of Alaskan Yupik). In Krauss (1985). 77–133.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff (1985b). Evolution of prosody in the Yupik languages. In Krauss (1985). 135–157.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff (1985c). Toward a metrical interpretation of Yupik prosody. In Krauss (1985). 159–172.Google Scholar
LeSourd, Philip S. (1993). Accent and syllable structure in Passamaquoddy. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette (1988). Generating ternary feet. Texas Linguistic Forum 29. 97–113.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Lunden, S. L. Anya (2014). Motivating final stress lapse. Paper presented at the Conference on Stress and Accent, Leiden.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G. (1952). A grammar of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje: Macedonian State Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Lorna (1990). A grammar of Tauya. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, James (1969). Mantjiltjara phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8. 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Paricio, Violeta (2012). Superfeet as recursion. WCCFL 30. 259–269.Google Scholar
Martínez-Paricio, Violeta (2013). An exploration of minimal and maximal feet. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Miner, Kenneth L. (1979). Dorsey's Law in Winnebago-Chiwere and Winnebago accent. IJAL 45. 25–33.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood and prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 225–255.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. (1964). Stress trains in Auca. In Abercrombie, David, Fry, D. B., MacCarthy, P. A. D., Scott, N. C. & Trim, J. L. M. (eds.) In honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 425–431.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1980). A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. LI 11. 511–562.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, Tesar, Bruce & Merchant, Nazarré (2015). OTWorkplace. https://sites.google.com/site/otworkplace/.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt (1992). Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: parametric extensions. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt (2011). Ternary rhythm. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 1228–1244.Google Scholar
Riggle, Jason (2004). Generation, recognition, and learning in finite-state Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, Thorstein (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111–140.Google Scholar
Shimoji, Michinori (2009). Foot and rhythmic structure in Irabu Ryukyuan. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 135. 85–122.Google Scholar
Siptár, Péter & Törkenczy, Miklós (2000). The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet (2014). Learnability shapes typology: the case of the midpoint pathology. Paper presented at Phonology 2014, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/juliets/www/stanton2014amp.pdf.Google Scholar
Staubs, Robert (2014). Learning and the position of primary stress. WCCFL 31. 428–437.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy A. (1979). Stress systems of the world, unite! MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 51–76.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell T. (1970). An introduction to Maranungku. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Vigário, Marina (2010). Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review 27. 485–530.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael (2005). Prosody and recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael (2010). Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. NLLT 28. 183–237.Google Scholar
Whitman, William (1947). Descriptive grammar of Ioway-Oto. IJAL 13. 233–248.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2004). Reduplication in English Homeric infixation. NELS 34. 619–633.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1998). Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms, MIT. Available as ROA-282 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Martínez-Paricio and Kager supplementary material

Martínez-Paricio and Kager supplementary material 1

Download Martínez-Paricio and Kager supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.2 MB