Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:43:39.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Focus on the prefix: evidence for word-internal prosodic words*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Ann Wennerstrom
Ann Wennerstrom
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper presents an analysis of the relationship between focus and the prosodic word (ω) in English. Using focus as a diagnostic, I will support the position that prosodic structure is built on a separate plane from morphological structure and that certain phonological processes are conditioned by prosodic bracketing (Booij & Rubach 1984, 1987; Nespor & Vogel 1986; Halle & Vergnaud 1987; Cohn 1989; Zec & Inkelas 1990; Kang 1992; Booij & Lieber 1993; Raffelsiefen 1993). More specifically, the proposal is that semantic analysability, focus and ω status coincide in a predictable manner on prefixes.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1993 , pp. 309 - 324
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

Aronoff, M. & Sridhar, S. N. (1987). Morphological levels in English and Kannada. In Gussmann, E. (ed.) Rules and the lexicon: studies in word formation. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. 9–22.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. & Lieber, R. (1993). On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. In Kaisse, E. & Hargus, S. (eds.) Studies in Lexical Phonology. New York: Academic Press. 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. & Rubach, J. (1987). Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in Lexical Phonology. LI 18. 1–44.Google Scholar
Brame, M. (1974). The cycle in phonology: stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. LI 5. 39–60.Google Scholar
Cho, Y. (1990). Syntax and phrasing in Korean. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 47–62.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohn, A. (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. NLLT 7. 167–216.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannahs, S. (1991). Prosodic structure and French morphophonology. PhD thesis, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (in press). Nimboran morphology. NLLT.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (eds.) (1990). The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. (1987). Rhythm and the cycle. CLS 23:2. 199–209.Google Scholar
Kanerva, J. (1990). Focusing on phonological phrases in Chicheŵa. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 145–161.Google Scholar
Kang, O. (1992). Korean prosodic phonology. PhD thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. & Vogel, I. (ms). Focus and phonological structure.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–441.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1980). The structure of intonational meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, R. (1984). English compound stress. In Gibbon, D. & Richter, H. (eds.) Intonation, accent and rhythm: studies in discourse phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter. 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, R. (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1989). On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6. 69–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Poser, W. (1990). Word-internal phrase boundary in Japanese. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 279–287.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R. (1993). Relating words: a model of base-recognition. Linguistic Analysis 23. 3–163.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. & Culicover, P. (1990). English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. & Shen, T. (1990). Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 313–337.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English morphology. PhD thesis, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (1981). Prefix stripping revisited. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20. 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. & Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 365–378.Google Scholar