Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- 7 Persistence and Change in Stem Prominence in Dene (Athabaskan) Languages
- 8 Spanish Word Stress
- 9 Metrically Conditioned Pitch Accent in Uspanteko
- 10 Focus Prosody in Kagoshima Japanese
- 11 Where Is the Dutch Stress System?
- 12 Morphologically Assigned Accent and an Initial Three-Syllable Window in Ese’eja
- 13 The Scales-and-Parameters Approach to Morpheme-Specific Exceptions in Accent Assignment
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
9 - Metrically Conditioned Pitch Accent in Uspanteko
from Part III - Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2018
Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- 7 Persistence and Change in Stem Prominence in Dene (Athabaskan) Languages
- 8 Spanish Word Stress
- 9 Metrically Conditioned Pitch Accent in Uspanteko
- 10 Focus Prosody in Kagoshima Japanese
- 11 Where Is the Dutch Stress System?
- 12 Morphologically Assigned Accent and an Initial Three-Syllable Window in Ese’eja
- 13 The Scales-and-Parameters Approach to Morpheme-Specific Exceptions in Accent Assignment
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Uspanteko, a Mayan language spoken in Guatemala, shows a remarkably rich interaction between the location of stress, vowel quality, syllable weight, and pitch accent. Commonly, it is assumed that the language has privative lexical tone. Counter to previous analyses of the facts, this chapter proposes that both the tonal contrasts and other relevant interactions can be derived from an opposition between trochaic and iambic feet. No tonal information is stored in the lexicon. While improving the empirical coverage of previous analyses with lexical tone, the current analysis adds little additional machinery, since the general distinction between trochees and iambs in Uspanteko has already been motivated on independent grounds. From a broader theoretical perspective, the chapter contributes to ongoing discussions on the phonological nature of tone-accent systems, one of the key issues in debates on prosodic typology.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Study of Word Stress and AccentTheories, Methods and Data, pp. 293 - 322Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Bennett, R. and Henderson, R.. (2013). Accent in Uspanteko. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(3): 589–645.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Trommer, J. (ed.) The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford University Press, 8–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (1993). A tonal analysis of Lithuanian nominal accent. Language 69: 237–273.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1977). Quichean Linguistic Prehistory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Can Pixabaj, T. (2006). Gramática descriptiva Uspanteka. Antigua, Guatemala: Oxlajuuj Keej Maya’ Ajtz’iib’ (OKMA).Google Scholar
Fournier, R. (2008). Perception of the tone contrast in East Limburgian dialects. Utrecht, LOT Dissertation series, vol. 196.Google Scholar
Grimes, J. (1971). A reclassification of the Quichean and Kekchian (Mayan) languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 15–19.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2000). The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory. In Horne, M. (ed.) Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Amsterdam: Kluwer, 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, A. (2016). The variable prosodic parsings of Nivaĉle glottal stop. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 16(2): 323–347.Google Scholar
Hermans, B. (2009). The phonological structure of the Limburg tonal accents. In Nasukawa, K. and Backley, P. (eds.) Strength Relations in Phonology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 317–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, B. (2012). The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. In Botma, B. and Noske, R. (eds.) Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 227–244.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der (2011). Pitch Accent Systems. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 1003–1026.Google Scholar
Hyde, B. (2011). The Iambic–Trochaic Law. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 1052–1077.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2007). Universals of tone rules: 30 years later. In Riad, T. and Gussenhoven, C. (eds.) Tones and Tunes: Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–34.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2009). How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31: 213–238.Google Scholar
Iosad, P. (2015). Pitch accent and prosodic structure in Scottish Gaelic: Reassessing the role of contact. In Hilpert, M., Duke, J., Mertzlufft, C., Östman, J.-O., and Rießler, M. (eds.) New Trends in Nordic and General Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 28–54.Google Scholar
Ito, J. and Mester, A.. (2011). The perfect prosodic word and the sources of unaccentedness. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kager, R. and Martínez-Paricio, V.. (2014). Antepenultimate mora effects – typology and representation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Word Stress and Accent, Leiden, 15–17 August.Google Scholar
Kehrein, W. (2017). There’s no tone in Cologne: against tone segment interactions in Franconian. In Kehrein, W., Köhnlein, B., Boersma, P., and van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 147–194.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2011). Rule reversal revisited: Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2016). Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone accent dialects. Phonology 33(1): 87–123.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2017). Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: a metrical approach. In Kehrein, W., Köhnlein, B., Boersma, P., and van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 211–236.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. (2007). Dialect variation in East Norwegian tone. In Riad, T. and Gussenhoven, C. (eds.) Tones and Tunes: Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 91–112.Google Scholar
Lacy, P. (2002a). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, P. (2002b). The formal expression of markedness. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Wetterlin, A., and Jönsson-Steiner, E.. (2005). Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 61–96.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., Wetterlin, A., and Jönsson-Steiner, E. (2006). Scandinavian lexical tone: Prefixes and compounds. In Bruce, G. and Horne, M. (eds.) Nordic Prosody IX. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 167–173.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst. Rutgers Optimality Archive 110.Google Scholar
Morén, B. (2001). Distinctiveness, Coercion and Sonority: A Unified Theory of Weight. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morén, B. (2005). Danish stød and Eastern Norwegian pitch accent: The myth of lexical tones. Paper presented at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting (mfm 13), Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Morén-Duolljá, B. (2013). The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required. Nordlyd 40(1): 196–248.Google Scholar
Morén-Duolljá, B. (forthcoming). Tone, Final Devoicing and Assimilation in Moresnet. In Kehrein, W., Köhnlein, B., Boersma, P., and van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marc van, Oostendorp (2017). Tone, final devoicing and assimilation in Moresnet. In W. Kehrein, B. Köhnlein, P. Boersma, and M. van Oostendorp (eds.) Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 237–252.Google Scholar
Peters, J. (2006). The Cologne word accent revisited. In de Vaan, M. (ed.) Germanic Tone Accents. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, 13–14 June 2003. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 107–133.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P.. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, C. 1988. Stress assignment in the Chugach dialect of Alutiiq. CLS 24, Papers from the General Session, 304–315.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1935). The relation of pitch to intensity. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 6(3): 150–154.Google Scholar
Ternes, E. (2006). The Phonemic Analysis of Scottish Gaelic, Based on the Dialect of Applecross, Ross-shire, 3rd rev. edn. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Wetterlin, A. (2010). Tonal Accents in Norwegian: Phonology, Morphology and Lexical Specification. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zec, D. (1999). Footed tones and tonal feet: Rhythmic constituency in a pitch-accent language. Phonology 16: 225–264.Google Scholar
Zec, D. and Zsiga, E.. (2010). Interaction of tone and stress in Standard Serbian. In Browne, W., Cooper, A., Fisher, A., Kesici, E., and Predolac, N. (eds.) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 18. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 536–555.Google Scholar