Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T21:58:33.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: the case of Turkish stress*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

Öner Özçelik
Öner Özçelik*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a novel approach to capturing exceptional stress that relies on prespecification of foot edges in the input. Focusing on Turkish, this approach accounts for both regular and exceptional stress in a unified manner and within a single grammar, and unlike other approaches, does not overpredict. On this account, Turkish is a footless, but trochaic, language. Both regular and exceptional Turkish morphemes are subject to the same constraint ranking; exceptional morphemes are different only in that they have one or more syllables already footed in the input, although the type of foot (e.g. trochaicity, binarity) is determined by the constraints of the grammar. As regular morphemes vacuously satisfy these constraints (which act on the foot), trochees appear on the surface only if there is an input foot available (i.e. in words with exceptional morphemes), since the grammar itself has no apparatus to parse syllables into feet.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , August 2014 , pp. 229 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

*I would like to express my deepest thanks to Heather Goad, Glyne Piggott, Michael Wagner, Lydia White and the audience at NELS 40 for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Heather Goad, in particular, has provided many ideas, support and guidance for this project, for which I am extremely grateful. I would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of Phonology, as well as the associate editor, for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Alderete, John (1999). Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Alderete, John (2001). Root-controlled accent in Cupeño. NLLT 19. 455–502.Google Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel (2009). Quantity-insensitive iambs in Osage. IJAL 75. 365–398.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Babel, Molly (2006). Multiple stresses in Aegean Turkish. Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Available (May 2014) at http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/mbabel/ictl_babel.pdf.Google Scholar
Barker, Christopher (1989). Extrametricality, the cycle, and Turkish word stress. In Itô & Runner (1989). 1–33.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çakır, Cem (2000). On non-final stress in Turkish simplex words. In Kerslake, Aslı Göksel & Celia (eds.) Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 3–10.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik (1991). Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charette, Monik (2008). The vital role of the trochaic foot in explaining Turkish word endings. Lingua 118. 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine, Alderete, John, Beasley, Tim & Markman, Vita (2003). Morphological effects on default stress in novel Russian words. WCCFL 22. 151–164.Google Scholar
Dobrovolsky, Michael (1999). The phonetics of Chuvash stress: implications for phonology. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California. 539–542.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. (2003). Iambic feet in Paumari and the theory of foot structure. Linguistic Discovery 2:1. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather & Buckley, Meaghen (2006). Prosodic structure in child French: evidence for the foot. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 5. 109–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather & White, Lydia (2009). Articles in Turkish/English interlanguage revisited: implications of vowel harmony. In García Mayo, María del Pilar & Hawkins, Roger (eds.) Second language acquisition of articles: empirical findings and theoretical implications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 201–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2000). Re-examining default-to-opposite stress. BLS 26. 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1989). Lexical stresses in Macedonian and Polish. Phonology 6. 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1980). A metrical theory of stress rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1981, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Elordieta, Gorka, Gaminde, Iñaki & Smiljanić, Rajka (2002). From pitch-accent to stress-accent in Basque. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 547–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (1999). Word accent. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.) Word prosodic systems of the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 3–115.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & van de Weijer, Jeroen (1991). Topics in Turkish phonology. In Boeschoten, Hendrik & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.) Turkish linguistics today. Leiden: Brill. 11–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2006). Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23. 225–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William J. (1992). The computation of prosody. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1999). Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: representations versus the grammar. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Lg 71. 763–793.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (1998). Level (non)ordering in recursive morphology: evidence from Turkish. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane M. & Farrell, Patrick K. (eds.) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford: CSLI. 360–392.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (2003). Turkish stress: a review. Phonology 20. 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Cemil Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1997). The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 393–418. Reprinted 2004 in McCarthy, John J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. 542–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Hankamer, Jorge (1989). Notes on monosyllabism in Turkish. In Itô & Runner (1989). 61–69.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Kitagawa, Yoshihisa & Mester, Armin (1996). Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 217–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 62–100.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (2001). Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 7. 273–299.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Runner, Jeff (eds.) (1989). Phonology at Santa Cruz 1. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cécile (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.) Intonation: analysis, modelling and technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 209–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene (2001). The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18. 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene (2011). Exceptions to stress and harmony: co-phonologies or prespecification? In Simon, Horst J. & Wiese, Heike (eds.) Expecting the unexpected: exceptions in grammar. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1985). Some theoretical consequences of stress rules in Turkish. CLS 21:1. 199–209.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1986a). Toward a lexical phonology of Turkish. In Brame, Michael, Contreras, Heles & Newmeyer, Frederick (eds.) A Festschrift for Sol Saporta. Seattle: Noit Amrofer. 231–239.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen (1986b). Locating Turkish devoicing. WCCFL 5. 119–128.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1991). Catalexis. Ms, Stanford University & Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Konrot, Ahmet (1981). Physical correlates of linguistic stress in Turkish. University of Essex Language Centre Occasional Papers 24. 26–53.Google Scholar
Konrot, Ahmet (1987). Stress in Turkish: is it determined phonologically or morphologically? In Boeschoten, Hendrik E. & Th. Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.) Studies on modern Turkish: Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Turkish linguistics. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. 3–12.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin (1996). On some copular clitics in Turkish. In Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrop, Paul Law & Sylvia Lohken (eds.) ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6. 96–114.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. (1961). The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. (2002). Intonation in Turkish: the realization of noun compounds and genitive possessive NPs. Ms, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. (2005). Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000a). The prosody of phase in Rotuman. NLLT 18. 147–197.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000b). Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In Dekkers, Joost, Leeuw, Frank van der & de Weijer, Jeroen van (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 151–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1999). Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology. In Kager, René, Hulst, Harry van der & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 218–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, Piet (1987). L'intonation du français: de la description linguistique à la reconnaissance automatique. PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin & Itô, Junko (1989). Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Lg 65. 258–293.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather (2005). The phonological phase. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 21–64.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (1994). Against the underlying specification of an ‘exceptional’ English stress pattern. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 95–121.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1995). Epenthesis and syllable weight. NLLT 13. 283–326.Google Scholar
Piggott, G. L. (1998). Foot form and the parsing of weightless syllables. CLS 34:1. 315–332.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne (2006). A duration-based solution to the problem of stress realization in Turkish. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report. 141–151.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi (1999). Headmost accent wins: head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi, Kaili, Hasan, Prokou, Sophia & Tiliopoulou, Maria-Anna (2006). Turkish accentuation revisited: a compositional approach to Turkish stress. In Yağcıoğlu, Semiramis, Değer, Ayşen Cem, Koşaner, Özgün & Çeltek, Aytaç (eds.) Advances in Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları. 37–50.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi & van de Vijver, Ruben (1998). Durational contrasts and the Iambic/Trochaic Law. In Samiian, Vida (ed.) Proceedings of the 26th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 96). Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. 229–242.Google Scholar
Reynolds, William T. (1994). Variation and phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Scullen, Mary Ellen (1997). French prosodic morphology: a unified account. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin (1981). The k/∅ alternation in Turkish. In Clements, G. N. (ed.) Harvard studies in phonology. Vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 354–382.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin (1983). On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5. 61–69.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 114–174.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verluyten, S. Paul (1982). Investigations on French prosodics and metrics. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Vijver, Ruben van de (1998). The iambic issue: iambs as a result of constraint interaction. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas C. (1984). The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar