To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
I argue that the Tiberian system of accents which annotate the text of the Hebrew Bible has a prosodic basis. Accentual representations are constructed in terms of units somewhat similar to the modern prosodic hierarchy, and they deviate from syntactic constituency in ways that are characteristic of prosodic representations. They are constrained by the effects of syntactic edges, geometric properties of prosodic phrases, principles for organizing phrases into higher-level constituents, and position in the phrase, associated with variations in tempo. It is shown that the Tiberian representation can best be understood by integrating results of phonological, phonetic, and psycholinguistic research on prosodic structure.
It is a familiar observation that phonological processes frequently fail to apply to geminates. A number of previous proposals attempted to account for these geminate inalterability effects in terms of a distinction between singly and multiply linked autosegments. Subsequent research, however, has observed that geminate inalterability is inviolable only in the domain of lenition processes. In this article, an account of this generalization is couched within a general optimality theoretic treatment of lenition, in which a scalar effort minimization constraint interacts with a set of lenition-blocking constraints. The geminate inalterability generalization follows from this effort-based approach to lenition, coupled with certain assumptions concerning the effort involved in geminates and their lenited counterparts.