Evidencia fonológica para los pies métricos trisilábicos

  1. Violeta Martínez Paricio 1
  1. 1 Norwegian University of Science and Technology
    info

    Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    Trondheim, Noruega

    ROR https://ror.org/05xg72x27

Journal:
Verba: Anuario galego de filoloxia

ISSN: 0210-377X

Year of publication: 2016

Issue: 43

Pages: 299-328

Type: Article

DOI: 10.15304/VERBA.43.2506 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Verba: Anuario galego de filoloxia

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

:This article examines the linguistic properties of a metrical foot, the phonological category between the prosodic word and the syllable, required to account for the patterns of stress and other phonological phenomena in the languages of the world. Despite the traditional assumption that feet are maximally disyllabic, in this paper it is argued that feet can sometimes be maximally trisyllabic, as long as they arise by adjoining a weak syllable to another foot. To sustain our hypothesis, different linguistic arguments and data will be presented, among others: (i) a puzzling pattern of vowel lengthening in two Australian languages, (iii) the distribution of aspirated and unaspirated stops in English and (iii) the stress patterns in Chugach Alutiiq. Beyond the account of ternary rhythmic stress, these metrical structures will be argued to be useful representations that provide a suitable account for differences between types of strong and week syllables, reported in some languages

Bibliographic References

  • Bennett, R. (2012): Foot-conditioned phonotactis and prosodic constituency. Tesis doctoral, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  • Bennett, R. (2013): “The uniqueness of metrical structure: rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano”, Phonology 30,3, pp. 355-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0952675713000195.
  • Berg, R. van den (1989): A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
  • Booij, Geert E. (1996): “Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch”, The Linguistic Review 13, pp. 219-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.219.
  • Buckley, E. (2014): “Kashaya Extrametricality and Formal Symmetry”, en Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology (vol. 1.1). http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/ amp.v1i1.27.
  • Caballero, G. (2008): Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. Tesis doctoral, University of California, Berkeley.
  • Carlson, L. (1978): Word stress in Finnish. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968): The Sound Pattern ofEnglish. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Chomsky, N. (1982): Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding, vol. 6. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
  • Davis, S. (1999): “The parallel distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English”, Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 1, pp. 1-10.
  • Davis, S. (2005): “Capitalisticʼ vs. ʻMilitaristicʼ: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered”, en L. J. Downing & T. A. Hall & R. Raffelsiefen (eds.): Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107-121.
  • Davis, S. & M. H. Cho (2003): “The distribution of aspirated stops and/h/in American English and Korean: an alignment approach with typological implications”, Linguistics 41,4, pp. 607-652. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.27.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. (1977a): A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139085045.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. (1977b): “Some phonological rules in Yidinʸ¸”, Linguistic Inquiry 8, pp. 1-34.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. (1981): “Wargamay”, en R. M. W. Dixon & B. J. Blake (eds.): Handbook of Australian languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, vol. 2, pp. 1–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/z.hal2.06dix.
  • Dresher, B. E. & A. Lahiri (1991): “The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English”, Linguistic Inquiry 22, pp. 251-286.
  • Dresher, B. E., & H. Van der Hulst (1998): “Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: complexity and visibility”, Phonology 15,3, pp. 317-352. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S0952675799003644.
  • Féry, C. (2010): “Recursion in prosodic structure”, Phonological Studies 13, pp. 51-60. Frota, S. (2000): Prosody and focus in European Portuguese. Phonological phrasing and intonation. New York: Garland.
  • Gordon, M. (2002): “A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20,3, pp. 491-552. http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1015810531699.
  • Green, A. D. (1997): The prosodic structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx. Tesis doctoral, University of Cornell.
  • Gussenhoven, C. (1991): “The English Rhythm Rule as an Accent Deletion Rule”, Phonology 8, pp. 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001263.
  • Halle, M. (1990): “Respecting metrical structure”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8,2, pp. 149-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00208522.
  • Halle, M. & J-R. Vergnaud (1987): An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Hammond, M. (1987): “Hungarian cola”, Phonology Yearbook 4, pp. 267-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000865.
  • Hayes, B. (1995): Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Hewitt, M. (1991): “Binarity and Ternarity in Alutiiq”, en J. Ann & K. Yoshimura (eds.): Proceedings of Arizona Phonology Conference. Arizona: University of Arizona, vol. 4, pp. 44-60.
  • Hint, M. (1973): Eesti keele sonafonoloogia. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.
  • Hyde, B. (2002): “A restrictive theory of metrical stress”, Phonology 19,3, pp. 313-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675703004391.
  • Inkelas, S. & Draga Z. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. En Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds.), The Syntax/Phonology Connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. (1992/2003). Weak layering and word binarity. En Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata & Shin ichi Tanaka (eds.), A new century of phonology and phonological theory: A festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 26–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Publicado originariamente como Linguistic Research Center Working Paper LRC-92-09, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  • Itô, J. & A. Mester (2007a): “Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds”, en Y. Miyamoto & M. Ochi (eds.): Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics (FAJL) 4, pp. 97-111.
  • Itô, J. & A. Mester (2007b): “Categories and projection in prosodic structures”. Trabajo presentado en el 4th Old World Conference in Phonology, Rhodes, Grecia.
  • Itô, J. & A. Mester (2013): “Prosodic subcategories in Japanese”, Lingua 124, pp. 20-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.016.
  • Hyde, B. (2012): “The odd-parity input problem”, Phonology 29,3, pp. 383-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675712000218.
  • Jensen, J. T. (2000): “Against ambisyllabicity”, Phonology 17,2, pp. 187-235. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700003912.
  • Kager, R. (1993): “Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law”, Natural Language y Linguistic Theory 11,3, pp. 381-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993165.
  • Kager, R. (1996): “Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr”, en M. Nespor & N. Smith (eds.): Dam Phonology: HIL Phonology Paper II, pp. 59-101. Den Haag: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
  • Kager, R. (1999): Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812408.
  • Kager, R. (2012): “Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology”, Lingua 122, pp. 1454-1493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.06.005.
  • Kager, R & V. Martínez-Paricio (2015): “Prominence relations in a metrical framework with internally layered feet”, en 37th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society. Workshop: Strong versus weak positions: possible variation and relevance for grammar.
  • Kager, R. & Martínez-Paricio, V. (en prensa). The internally layered foot in Dutch, Linguistics.
  • Kiparsky, P. (1979): “Metrical structure assignment is cyclic”, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 3, pp. 421-441.
  • Ladd, D. R. (1986): “Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure”, Phonology 3, pp. 311-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000671.
  • Leer, J. (1985a): “Prosody in Alutiiq”, en M. Krauss (ed.): Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, pp. 77-134.
  • Leer, J. (1985b): “Evolution of prosody in the Yupik languages”, en M. Krauss (ed.): Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, pp. 135-158.
  • Leer, J. (1985c): “Toward a metrical interpretation of Yupik prosody”, en M. Krauss (ed.): Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, pp. 159-173.
  • Levin, J. (1985): Evidence for ternary feet and implications for a metrical theory of stress rules. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.
  • Levin, J. (1988): “Generating ternary feet”, Texas Linguistic Forum 29, pp. 97-113.
  • Liberman, M. & A. Prince (1977): “On stress and linguistic rhythm”, Linguistic Inquiry 8,2, pp. 249-336.
  • Liberman, M. (1975): The intonational system of English. Tesis doctoral, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Martínez-Paricio, V. (2012): “Superfeet as recursion”, en N. Arnett & R. Bennett (eds.): Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 259-269.
  • Martínez-Paricio, V. (2013): An exploration of minimal and maximal metrical feet. Tesis doctoral, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.
  • Martínez-Paricio, V. & R. Kager (2015): “The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: layered feet and non-intervention constraints”, Phonology, pp. 459-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000287.
  • McCarthy, J. J. (1982): “Prosodic structure and expletive infixation“, Language 58, pp. 574-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/413849.
  • McCarthy, J. J., A. Prince (1986/1996): Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass. [Versión anotada de 1996, publicada como Technical Report 32, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science].
  • Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1986): Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Oostendorp, Marc van (1995): Vowel quality and syllable projection. Tesis doctoral, University of Tilburg, Tilburg.
  • Prince, A. (1980): “A metrical theory for Estonian quantity”, Linguistic Inquiry 11, pp. 511-562.
  • Rice, C. (1992): Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: Parametric extensions. Tesis doctoral, University of Texas, Austin.
  • Rice, C. (2007): “The roles of GEN and CON in modeling ternary rhythm”, en S. Blaho & P. Bye & M. Krämer (eds.): Freedom of analysis? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 233-255.
  • Rice, C. (2011): “Ternary rhythm”, en M. v. Oostendorp & C. J. Ewen & E. Hume & K. D. Rice (eds.): The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, vol. 5, pp. 1228-1244.
  • Selkirk, E. O. (1980): “The role of prosodic categories in English word stress”, Linguistic Inquiry 11,3, pp. 563-605.
  • Selkirk, E. O. (1981): “On the nature of phonological representation”, en J. M. Anderson & J. Laver & T. Myers (eds.): The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, pp. 379-388. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)60213-7.
  • Selkirk, E. O. (1984): Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Selkirk, E. O. (1996): “The prosodic structure of function words”, en J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.): Signal to syntax: Prosodic bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, pp. 187-213. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates [también en J. Beckman & L. Walsh Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.): Papers in Optimality Theory 18. Amherst, MA: GLSA].
  • Smith, J. L. (2005): Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. New York, London: Routledge.
  • Vigário, M. (2003): The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110900927.
  • Withgott, M. M. (1982). Segmental evidence for phonological constituents. Tesis doctoral, University of Texas, Austin.
  • Yu, Alan C. L. (2004): “Reduplication in Homeric infixation”, en Proceedings of NELS 34, pp. 619-633.
  • Zoll, C. (1998/2004): “Positional asymmetries and licensing”, en J. J. McCarthy (ed.): Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 365-378.
Data source: Dialnet