A lot of work on word stress
focuses on edges, weight, and rhythm. However, a small body of work has looked at other
influences on stress including structural elements (e.g.
onsets, codas, and so on), tone, and
sonority levels. My interest in both tone-/sonority-driven stress
has generally not been for its own sake, but rather for the insight it
gives into the formal expression of
markedness.
My work on sub-syllabic
structural influences on word stress and feet started in Prosodic
Categorization, my MA thesis, which argues that there are is a
family of structural constraints that accounts for prosody.
Markedness in prominent positions (2001) discusses it as a
side-effect of constraints on sonority and prominent positions like
'onset' and 'main-stressed syllable'. In work with Patrik Bye (Metrical
influences on fortition and lenition, 2008), we argued that
there are size restrictions specifically on the heads of PrWds (as
opposed to foot heads). We also argued that other conditions on
codas could influence stress placement.
Most of my work has been
on how tone and sonority influence foot form and position. There's
an overview in my chapter in the Cambridge Handbook of Phonology
(2007).
Tone and prominence
(1999) and The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory
(2002) argued that there is a special affinity between higher tone
and foot heads, and between lower tone and non-foot heads. The
formal implementation involved sets of negatively formulated constraints
in a universally fixed ranking (e.g. *Hd/L >> *Hd/M >> *Hd/H). The
notion of 'head' and 'non-head' was expressed in more detail as
Designated Terminal Element (DTE) and non-DTE in the formal
expression of markedness (2002). Fixed rankings were rejected
in favor of stringent constraints in The formal expression of
markedness (2002) and Markedness and conflation in OT
(2004).
I have written more on
sonority-driven stress than on tone-driven stress, initially inspired by
Michael Kenstowicz' ROA article. Major case studies include
Nganasan (2004), Kiriwina (2002, 2004), Gujarati (2002,2006:ch.7.4),
Takia (2007), and Harar Oromo (2002).
Constraints that
regulate the relationship between tone/sonority and prosodic structure
don't just cause stress shift; they provoke other responses that have
often been more well documented. A well-known example is vowel
reduction, as argued by Crosswhite in her doctoral
dissertation. I discuss vowel reduction in Markedness ch.7,
differing from Crosswhite in arguing that constraints on sonority and
prosodic structure are completely sufficient in accounting for all
vowel reduction patterns; there is no need for constraints that provoke
vowel 'dispersion'.
References
de Lacy,
Paul and Patrik Bye (in press for 2008). Metrical influences on lenition
and fortition. In Joaquim de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer, and Philippe
Sιgιral (eds.) Lenition and Fortition. Studies in Generative Grammar.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[abstract] [article]
Argues for constraints specifically on PrWd heads to motivate stress
attraction and fortition.
de Lacy,
Paul (2007). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure.
In Paul de Lacy (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, ch.12 (pp. 281-307).
An overview of recent work on tone-, sonority-, and constituent-driven
stress.
de Lacy,
Paul (2006). Markedness: Reduction and
Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
112. Cambridge University Press.
[abstract]
[Google
books excerpt] [corrections]
[handout]
[talk]
Ch.7 examines the influence of sonority-foot constraints on vowel
reduction and stress placement. Provides a detailed analysis of
Gujarati sonority-driven stress.
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness
conflation in Optimality Theory.
Phonology 21.2:145-199. [Abstract] [Article]
Provides detailed analyses of two sonority-driven stress systems (Nganasan,
Kiriwina). Argues that distinctions between markedness categories
can be ignored in specific languages.
de Lacy,
Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD
dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Amherst. ROA
542.
Analyses of a variety of sonority-driven stress systems (chs.3,4).
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The interaction of
tone and stress in Optimality
Theory. Phonology 19.1: 1-32. [Abstract] [Article]
Proposes a tone markedness hierarchy, and its relation to prosodic
structure. Aims to account for tone-driven stress and
stress-driven tone placement.
de Lacy, Paul (2001). Markedness in
prominent positions. In Ora
Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and
Adam Szczegielniak (eds.) HUMIT 2000, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
40. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp.53-66.
ROA 432.
Proposes a theory that accounts for restrictions imposed on prominent
positions, such as onsets and stressed syllables. Argues that
these restrictions can cause stress-sensitivity to onsets and sonority
in onsets.
de Lacy,
Paul (1999). Tone and prominence,
ROA 333.
A precursor to the (2002) article; also contains discussion of
stress-driven tone patterns in Nguni languages.
de Lacy, Paul (1997).
Prosodic categorization. MA Thesis, University of Auckland.
ROA
236.
Proposes a theory of constraints on subsyllabic constituents and foot
form.
|
