Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T15:53:53.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical stresses in Macedonian and Polish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Michael Hammond
Michael Hammond
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We have presented two different analyses of stress in Macedonian and Polish: one in terms of CGs and the other in terms of QS/ROB footing. Further, we showed how there were a number of problems with the CG account. We now consider those problems again in light of the latter analyses above.

The first problem was that the emergence of unmarked stress under suffixation did not find a uniform explanation in Macedonian and Polish. This is not true of the revised analyses. Both are couched in terms of accent and the reemergence of regular stress in both languages follows as a consequence of distribution of lexical accent. In fact, aside from the contribution of secondary stresses in Polish and their absence in Macedonian, the analyses differ minimally. Footing in Macedonian is QS; footing in Polish is ROB.

A second problem for the CG was that the reemergence of unmarked stress in Polish did not find a uniform explanation. Some cases were handled with lexical extrametricality, while others were handled with the special extrametricality rule.(44)

This is also not a problem for the revised analysis. Class I and class II now differ minimally in the placement of accent.

The third problem discussed above was the ad hoc character of the special extrametricality rule (44). This too is no longer a problem since this rule is no longer a part of the analysis. In fact, perhaps we can make the strong claim that rules of this type are to.be excluded in principle. An even stronger claim which might be supportable, though it would require we reconsider a number of analyses, is that lexical accent can never be marked with extrametricality. We leave this latter hypothesis open.

Summarising, the best analysis of Macedonian and Polish requires a theory that makes use of two different kinds of footing – quantity-sensitive (QS) and revised obligatory-branching (ROB) – and that marks accent in terms of a diacritic feature rather than in terms of grid marks without constituency. Only by adopting such a theory can we capture in a satisfying fashion the generalisation exhibited in Macedonian and Polish, that regular stress reemerges when a word with exceptional stress undergoes sufficient affixation.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 19 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, D. (1986). Extrametricality in Yawelmani. The Linguistic Review 4. 101–120.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Irregular stress in Polish and Macedonian. International Review of Slavic Linguistics I. 227–240.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. (1978). The Middle Clarence dialects of Bandjalang. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Sudies.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1983). Stress in Polish and Macedonian. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1985). Extrametricality and stress in Polish. LI 16. 144–151.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1987). Regular and irregular stress in Macedonian. Ms, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining metrical theory: a modular theory of rhythm and destressing. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Revised version distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Published 1988, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. (1986). The Obligatory-Branching Parameter in metrical theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, M. (1987). Accent, constituency, and lollipops. CLS 23. 149–166.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1981). A metrical theory of stress. 1980 PhD dissertation, MIT. Revised version distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. & Puppel, S. (1984). On the rhythm rule in Polish. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) Advances in nonlinear phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 59–81.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P. (1976). The Radozda-Vevcani dialect of Macedonian. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Lunt, H. G. (1952). Grammar of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. & Booij, G. (1985). A grid theory of stress in Polish. Lingua 66. 281–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, J. C. (1963). Khalkha structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar