Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-2vr45 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-10T18:29:50.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The word-level prosody of Samoan*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

Kie Zuraw ,
Kristine M. Yu  and
Robyn Orfitelli
Kie Zuraw*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Kristine M. Yu*
Affiliation:
University of MassachusettsAmherst
Robyn Orfitelli*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
*
E-mail: kie@ucla.edu
E-mail: krisyu@linguist.umass.edu
E-mail: r.orfitelli@sheffield.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper documents and analyses stress and vowel length in Samoan words. The domain of footing, the Prosodic Word, appears to be a root and cohering suffixes; prefixes and most disyllabic suffixes form a separate domain. Vowel sequences that disrupt the normal stress pattern require constraints matching sonority prominence to metrical prominence, sensitive to degree of mismatch and to the number of vowels involved. Two suffixes unexpectedly have an idiosyncratic footing constraint, observable only in a limited set of words. We also discuss trochaic shortening and its asymmetrical productivity, and the marginal contrastiveness of some features in loans. While Samoan does not appear to be typologically unusual, it does offer arguments (i) in favour of alignment constraints on Prosodic Words rather than only on feet directly, and (ii) against simple cyclicity. Some of the strongest evidence comes from stress patterns of the rich inventory of phonotactically licit vowel sequences.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , August 2014 , pp. 271 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*We thank our primary consultant, John Fruean, and Kare'l Lokeni for their many hours of work on this project. We also thank the other members of the UCLA 2007–08 field methods class (Martine Bruil, Jennifer Fischer, Ben George, Vincent Homer, Ben Jones, Jieun Kim, Hilda Koopman and Constanze Weise), Eric Baković, Bruce Hayes, Maria Polinsky, Kevin Ryan and three anonymous reviewers and an associate editor for their input. For helping coordinate fieldwork in Apia, Samoa, we thank John Fruean, Gladys Fuimaono, Peone Fuimaono and staff members at Hotel Elisa. For creating a database of the words in Milner (1993) we thank Sarah Conlon, Kris Ebarb, Aellon Krider, Karyn Maczka, Katarina Mentzelopoulos, Claire Moore-Cantwell, Ingrid Norrmann-Vigil and Violeta Osegueda. We are grateful for funding from the UCLA Academic Senate's Committee on Research for fieldwork at UCLA, and funding from the Departments of Linguistics at University of Maryland College Park and University of Massachusetts for fieldwork in Samoa.

References

Albright, Adam (2002). The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Alderete, John (2009). Exploring recursivity, stringency, and gradience in the Pama-Nyungan stress continuum. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 181–202.Google Scholar
Anderson, Victoria & Otsuka, Yuko (2006). The phonetics and phonology of ‘definitive accent’ in Tongan. Oceanic Linguistics 45. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke (2000). What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 119–131.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter (1981). A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Brett (2005). The domain of phonological processes. In Mushin, Ilana (ed.) Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Available (May 2014) at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/112.Google Scholar
Baker, Brett (2008). Word structure in Ngalakgan. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark (2003). Word structure in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 23. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Laura, Walsh Dickey & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (2009). Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In Calabrese, Andrea & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Loan phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 11–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (1999). Stress, epenthesis, and segmental transformation in Selayarese loans. BLS 25. 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2008). Stress-epenthesis interactions. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (1998). Alignment in Manam stress. LI 29. 475–496.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2001). Prosodic word structure in Kashaya reduplication. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 27–37.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2000). Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking, and correspondence. In Dekkers, Joost, Leeuw, Frank van der & de Weijer, Jeroen van (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Horst (1986). A lexicon of foreign loan-words in the Samoan language. Cologne & Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra (1978). Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell (1953). Tongan grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1997). Berber syllabification: derivations or constraints? In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Abigail (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. NLLT 7. 167–216.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail & McCarthy, John J. (1998). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 12. 53–137.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar (2008). Leipzig glossing rules. Ms, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & University of Leipzig. Available (May 2014) at www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine M. (2001). Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan J. (1994). Prosodic alignment and misalignment in Diyari, Dyirbal, and Gooniyandi: an optimizing approach. WCCFL 13. 16–31.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed (2002). Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan Arabic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977a). A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977b). Some phonological rules in Yidiny. LI 8. 1–34.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Raymond G. Jr. (ed.) (2005). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 15th edn. Dallas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark, Kissock, Madelyn & Reiss, Charles (1998). Output–output correspondence in Optimality Theory. WCCFL 16. 223–236.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon (1988). The Lexical Phonology of Sentani. New York & London: Garland.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
Homer, Vincent (2007a). Samoan stress. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent (2007b). The suffixes -a and -ina. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
IPA handbook (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: a guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Weak layering and word binarity. In Honma, Takeru, Okazaki, Masao, Tabata, Toshiyuki & Tanaka, Shin'ichi (eds.) A new century of phonology and phonological theory: a Festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 26–65. Revised version of Report LRC-92-09, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz (1992).Google Scholar
Kager, René (1997). Generalized alignment and morphological parsing. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 245–282.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1995). Cyclic vs. non-cyclic constraint evaluation. Phonology 12. 397–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1997a). Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 157–187.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1997b). Uniform exponence: exemplification and extension. In Miglio, Viola & Morén, Bruce (eds.) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Selected Phonology Papers from the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997. 139–155.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (2007). Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: a case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29. 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1983). Word formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence: University of Kansas. 3–29.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). The prosody of phase in Rotuman. NLLT 18. 147–197.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). Two lectures on prosodic morphology. Handouts of two lectures at OTS/HIL Workshop on Prosodic Morphology, Utrecht University. Available as ROA-59 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, et al. (1995). 249–384.Google Scholar
McGregor, William (1990). A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, G. B. (1993). Samoan dictionary: Samoan–English, English–Samoan. Auckland: Polynesian Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Hovdhaugen, Even (1992). Samoan reference grammar. London & Tromsø: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, David (1980). Topics in Warlpiri grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, Robyn & Yu, Kristine M. (2009). The intonational phonology of Samoan. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (1997). Prosodic words. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Steele, Shirley A. (1989). Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46. 181–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poser, William J. (1985). Cliticization to NP and Lexical Phonology. WCCFL 4. 262–272.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. (1989). The metrical foot in Diyari. Phonology 6. 117–148.CrossRefGoogle 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
Rice, Keren (1989). A grammar of Slave. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren (1992). On deriving rule domains: the Athapaskan case. WCCFL 10. 417–430.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1978). English loanwords in Fijian. In Schütz, Albert J. (ed.) Fijian language studies: borrowing and pidginization. Suva: Fiji Museum. 1–50.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1985). The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1999). Fijian accent. Oceanic Linguistics 38. 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, N. C. (1948). A study in the phonetics of Fijian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12. 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.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
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, et al. (1995). 439–469.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Taumoefolau, Melanaite (2003). Stress in Tongan. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44. 341–354.Google Scholar