Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:45:10.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2010

RENÉ SCHIERING ,
BALTHASAR BICKEL  and
KRISTINE A. HILDEBRANDT
RENÉ SCHIERING*
Affiliation:
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
BALTHASAR BICKEL*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
KRISTINE A. HILDEBRANDT*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
*
Authors' addresses: (Schiering) Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Aegidiistr. 5, 48143 Münster, Germany[email protected]
(Bickel) Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, Beethovenstrasse 15, 04107 Leipzig, Germany[email protected]
(Hildebrandt) English Language and Literature, Box 1431, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62025, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Prosodic Phonology, domains for the application of phonological patterns are commonly modeled as a Prosodic Hierarchy. The theory predicts, among other things, that (i) prosodic domains cluster on a single universal set of domains (‘Clustering’), and (ii) no level of prosodic structure is skipped in the building of prosodic structure unless this is required by independently motivated higher ranking principles or constraints (‘Strict Succession’). In this paper, we demonstrate that if, as is standardly done, evidence is limited to lexically general phonological processes, some languages systematically violate the Strict Succession Prediction, evidencing no prosodic word domain, and some languages systematically violate the Clustering Prediction, evidencing more than one domain between the phonological phrase and the foot. We substantiate these claims by in-depth studies of phonological rule domains in Vietnamese (Austroasiatic) and Limbu (Sino-Tibetan). As an alternative to the Prosodic Hierarchy framework, we advocate a heuristic for cross-linguistic comparison in which prosodic domains are conceived of as language-particular, intrinsic and highly specific properties of individual phonological rules or constraints. This allows us to explore empirically the actual degree of variation to be encountered across prosodic systems. It turns out that the ‘word’ has no privileged or universal status in phonology, but only emerges through frequent reference of sound patterns to a given construction type in a given language.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 657 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. BI 799/2-3). We are indebted to Juliette Blevins, Tracy A. Hall, Larry Hyman, Sharon Inkelas, Jochen Trommer and three anonymous JL referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. For ancillary material, including summary reports of individual languages and a downloadable database, see www.uni-leipzig.de/~autotyp.

References

REFERENCES

Antilla, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1993. Is a rhythm-based typology possible? A study on the role of prosody in phonological typology (Arbeitspapier 21). Konstanz: Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Bauer, Christian. 1982. Morphology and syntax of spoken Mon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1995. In the vestibule of meaning: Transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon. Studies in Language 19, 73–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1996. Aspect, mood, and time in Belhare. Zürich: ASAS Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1998. Rhythm and feet in Belhare morphology. Rutgers Optimality Archive (Working Paper 287). http://roa.rutgers.edu (14 November 2007).Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus constructions in some Kiranti languages. In Yadava, Yogendra P. & Glover, Warren W. (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Prosodic tautomorphemicity in Sino-Tibetan. In Bradley, David, LaPolla, Randy J., Michailovsky, Boyd & Thurgood, Graham (eds.), Variation in Sino-Tibetan and South East Asian languages, 89–99. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. In press. Absolute and statistical universals. In Hogan, Patrick Colm (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of language sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Banjade, Goma, Gaenszle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Paudyal, Netra, Rai, Ichchha P., Rai, Manoj, Rai, Novel K. & Stoll, Sabine. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Hildebrandt, Kristine A.. 2005. Diversity in phonological word domains. Presented at the 6th Biannual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Padang.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Schiering, René. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations (Interface Explorations 16), 47–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (revised, 2nd edn.), 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickmore, Lee 2007. Cilungu phonology (Stanford Monographs in African Languages). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, (ed.), 206–244.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2001. Prosodic words in Yurok. Ms., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2007. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.6.37) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/ (14 November 2007).Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch (The Phonology of the World's Languages). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its demarcations: Selected papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 264), 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 38). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCanio, Christian. 2005. Expressive alliteration in Mon and Khmer. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report 2005, 337–393.Google Scholar
Dinh-Hoa, Nguyen. 1997. Vietnamese: Tieng viet khong son phan (London Oriental and African Language Library 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.. 2002a. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, & Aikhenvald, (eds.), 1–41.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.). 2002b. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. 1999. Prosodic stem ≠ prosodic word in Bantu. In Hall, & Kleinhenz, (eds.), 73–98.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. 2001. Ungeneralizable minimality in Ndebele. Studies in African Linguistics 30, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1994. The structure of Kiranti languages. Zürich: ASAS Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1951. Studies in Vietnamese (Annamese) grammar (University of California Publications in Linguistics 8). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Fletcher, Janet & Ross, Belinda. 2008. Big words, small phrases: Mismatches between pause units and the polysynthetic word in Dalabon. Linguistics 46, 87–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 1). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hall, T. Alan & Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.). 1999. Studies on the phonological word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1954. De l'origine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique 242, 69–82.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, Paul & Youmans, Gilbert (eds.), Phonetics and phonology, vol. 1: Rhythm and meter, 201–260. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, John. 2002. The word in Eastern/Central Arrernte. In Dixon, & Aikhenvald, (eds.), 100–124.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2003. Manage tone: Scenarios of retention and loss in two communities. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2007. Prosodic and grammatical domains in Limbu. Himalayan Linguistics Journal 8, 1–34.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1987. Prosodic domains in Kukuya. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1998. Positional prominence and the ‘prosodic trough’ in Yaka. Phonology 15, 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics 46, 309–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M., Katamba, Francis & Walusimbi, Livingstone. 1987. Luganda and the strict layer hypothesis. Phonology Yearbook 4, 87–108.Google Scholar
Ingram, John & Nguyen, Thi Anh Thu. 2006. Stress, tone and word prosody in Vietnamese compounds. In Warren, & Watson, (eds.), 193–198.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil O.. 2003. Turkish stress: A review. Phonology 20, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga. 1995. Syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, (ed.), 535–549.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Armin Mester, R.. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistic Research Center, Cowell College.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1995. The core–periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking (University of Massachussets Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2009. The onset of the prosodic word. In Parker, Steve (ed.), Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation (Advances in Optimality Theory). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Joseph, Brian D.. 1992. Meta-templates and the underlying (dis-)unity of Sanskrit reduplication. In Westphal, Germán F., Ao, Benjamin & Chae, Hee-Rahk (eds.), ESCOL ’91: The Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 11–13 October 1991, 160–173. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jenny, Mathias. 2005. The verb system of Mon (ASAS 19). Zürich: Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Schiering, René. 2006. The phonology and morphology of function word contractions in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9, 53–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18, 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Liêm, Nguyễn Đăng. 1970. Four-syllable idiomatic expressions in Vietnamese (Pacific Linguistics, Series D – Special Publications 6). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Marlo, Michael R. 2008. Flexible stems in Bantu. Ms., Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991a. Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers, 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991b. Sino-Tibetan linguistics: Present state and future prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 469–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine. 1973. Phonologie Tamang: Étude phonologique du dialecte Tamang de Risiangku (langue Tibeto-Burmane du Nepal). Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 2000. On a bipartite model of the Athabaskan verb. In Fernald, Theodore B. & Platero, Paul R. (eds.), The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a native American language family (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 24), 139–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1986. Structure syllabique et variation combinatoire: Voisement et gémination en limbu. Cahiers de linguistique asie-orientale 15, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 2002. Limbu–English dictionary of the Mewa Khola dialect with English–Limbu index. Kathmandu: Mandala.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2004. The emergence of distinctive features. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1995. Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 75–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1998. AUX in Bantu morphology and phonology. In Hyman, Larry M. & Kisseberth, Charles (eds.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu tone, 231–264. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 2007. Prosodic Phonology: With a new foreword (Studies in Generative Grammar 28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Thi Anh Thu & Ingram, John. 2006. Reduplication and word stress in Vietnamese. In Warren, & Watson, (eds.), 187–192.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Thi Anh Thu & Ingram, John. 2007. Word stress and compounding in Vietnamese. Ms., School of English, Media Studies, and Art History, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia.Google Scholar
Nhàn, Ngô Thanh. 1984. The syllabeme and patterns of word formation in Vietnamese. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2003. Nar-Phu. In Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 336–352. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Vietnamese ‘morphology’ and the definition of word. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 65–89.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1987. Predicting tone in Kikuria. Current Approaches to African Linguistics 4, 311–326.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1995. Phonology at the phrasal level in Bantu. In Katamba, Francis (ed.), Bantu phonology and morphology (LINCOM Studies in African Linguistics 6), 40–68. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1996. The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi (The Phonology of the World's Languages). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. To appear. Rules vs. constraints. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil O. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 1996. On the prosodic representation of clitics. In Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), 102–127. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 1997. Prosodic words. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Pham, Andrea H. 2000. Vietnamese reduplication: Phonetics–phonology mismatch of tones. In Jensen, John & Herk, Gerard Van (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association 1999, 225–236. Ottawa: Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa.Google Scholar
Pham, Andrea H. 2001. A phonetic study of Vietnamese tones: Reconsideration of the register flip-flop rule in reduplication. In Féry, Caroline, Green, Antony D. & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference (HILP) 5, 140–158. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Pham, Andrea H. 2003. Vietnamese tone: A new analysis (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probability theory in linguistics, 177–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar (Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2). http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF (26 March 2010).Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication (Studies in Generative Grammar 52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schiering, René. 2009. Stress-timed=word-based? Testing a hypothesis in prosodic typology. Presented at the 8th Biannual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.), Juncture: A collection of original papers (Studia Linguistica et Philologica 7), 107–129. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure (Current Studies in Linguistics 10). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18), 439–469. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Thomas, David D. 1962. On defining the ‘word’ in Vietnamese. Văn-Hóa Nguyệt-San 11, 519–523.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. 1963. The problem of the word in Vietnamese. Word 19, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. 1965. A Vietnamese grammar. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1987. A grammar of Limbu (Mouton Grammar Library 4). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1990. The rise and fall of the phoneme /r/ in Eastern Kiranti. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1997. A new analysis of the Limbu verb. In Bradley, David (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 157–173. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Warren, Paul & Watson, Catherine I. (eds.). 2006. 11th Australian International Conference on Speech Science & Technology, University of Auckland, Auckland, 6–8 December 2006. Auckland: Australian Speech Science & Technology Association.Google Scholar
Weidert, Alfons & Subba, Bikram. 1985. Concise Limbu grammar and dictionary. Amsterdam: Lobster.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1993. Rule domains and phonological change. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen (eds.), Phonetics and phonology, vol. 4: Studies in lexical phonology, 365–405. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 2005. Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22, 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga & Inkelas, Sharon. 1991. The place of clitics in the prosodic hierarchy. In Bates, Dawn E. (ed.), 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 10), 505–519. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar