Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:56:47.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English stress, vowel length and modularity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Luigi Burzio
Luigi Burzio
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The evolution of phonological theory over the past fifteen years or so mirrors in important respects that of syntactic theory. The common evolutionary characteristic is the emergence of modularity. As is frequently noted following Chomsky (1986: ch. 3), in syntax, rich systems of rules have been supplanted by a relatively small number of discrete sub-theories, such as the theories of thematic relations, Case, Binding, Government, and the theory of empty categories. Characteristically, each sub-theory regulates one specific aspect of syntactic structure, at one or more levels of representation, for example the distribution of overt noun phrases at S-structure. The emergence of the sub-theories reflects a natural shift in investigative focus. Just as studying the facts of language from a systematic and formal perspective led to the discovery of generalizations of fact, originally expressed as ‘rules’, so the study of the rules themselves led to the discovery of higher-order generalizations, expressed by the various conditions or principles that make up the contemporary sub-theories. Although Chomsky (1986:70ff.) lists several important contributors to the development of the new perspective, in the mind of most syntacticians, a watershed event in this evolution was Chomsky's own ‘Conditions on transformations’ (1973). To the extent that this development of syntactic theory is a natural one towards deeper understanding, a comparable one is expected in phonological theory. Although the ‘modularity’ of phonology is less frequently noted and identification of a single watershed event is perhaps more difficult, there are clearly several ‘modules’ or sub-theories that have emerged in post-SPE history – three in particular.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 359 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Allen, M. (1978). Morphological investigations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. & Sridhar, S. N. (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or atarizing Reagan. In Richardson, J., Marks, M. & Chukerman, Amy (eds.) Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 3–16.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S. & Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 51–70.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1987). English stress. In Bertinetto, P. M. & Loporcaro, M. (eds.) Certamen phonologicum, papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 153–175.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1989). Prosodic reduction. In Kirschner, C. & Decesaris, J. (eds.) Studies in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1990). English vowel length and foot structure. In Bertinetto, P. M., Kenstowicz, M. & Loporcaro, M. (eds.) Certamen phonologicum II, Papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 121–145.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1991). On the metrical unity of latinate affixes. In Germán, Westphal, Benjamin, Ao, & Hee-Rahk, Chae, eds. Proceeding of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. Reprinted in Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 16, 1–27.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1992). Principles in phonology. In Fava, E., ed. Proceedings of the XVII Meeting on Generative Grammar (Trieste, February 22–24, 1991), 97–119. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (in press). Metrical consistency. In Ristad, E., ed. Proceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Human Language, American Mathematical Society, Providence RI.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. & DiFabio, E. (in press). Accentual stability. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics (LSRL XXIII), Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origins and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1983). Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Lg 59. 35–66.Google Scholar
Clements, N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, N. & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, A. (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 167–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiFabio, E. (1990). The morphology of the verbal infix /-isk-/ in Italian and in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard.Google Scholar
Everett, D. & Everett, K. (1984). On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement. LIn 15. 705–711.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, E. (1984). English word-stress. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. (1981). Zero syllables in metrical theory. Dressler, W. U., Pfeiffer, O. E. & Rennison, J. R. (eds.) Phonologica 1980: Akten der vierten internationalen Phonologietagung, Wien, 29 Juni – 2 Juli 1980. Innsbruck: IBS. 153–159.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. (1985). Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1979). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1990) Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1988). Lexical accent rules in English. Ms., Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Kenstowicz, M. (1991). The free element condition and cyclic versus noncyclic stress. Linguistic Inquiry 22.3, 457–501.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. LIn 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. (1987a). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. R. (1987b). Stress and the cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 45–84.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, published by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LIn 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1985). A metrical theory of stress rules. New York: Garland. (Same as Hayes, 1981.)Google Scholar
Hyman, L. (1985). A theory of phonological weight, Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. (1990). Stipulated extraprosodicity in syllabic phonology. Language Research 26.3, 515–552. Seoul National University, South Korea.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenyon, J. & Knott, T. A. (1944). A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, G. C. Merriam.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). Elsewhere in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LIn 10. 421–442.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LIn 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, T. (1989). Syllable structure in Malayalam. LIn 20. 589–625.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1985). The long and the short of it: a metrical theory of vowel quantity. Proceedings of the 21st regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL. 275–288.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanni, D. (1977). Stressing words in -Ative. LIn 8. 752–763.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1985). Morphology and logical form. LIn 16. 193–246.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. LIn 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1991). Aspects of prosodic minimality. Lecture, University of Maryland at College Park (2 Jan. 1991).Google Scholar
Rappaport, M. (1984). Issues in the phonology of Tiberian Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). A reanalysis of English word stress. In Brame, M. (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology. Austin and London: University of Texas Press. 229–323.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1984). Segmental rules of English and cyclic phonology. LIn 60. 21–54.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1988). Greek accent: a case for preserving structure. LIn 19. 271–314.Google Scholar
Vogel, I. & Scalise, S. (1982). Secondary stress in Italian. Lingua 58. 213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar