Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:51:57.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English stress preservation: the case for ‘fake cyclicity’1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

SARAH COLLIE
SARAH COLLIE*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Edinburgh
*
8/8 High Riggs, Edinburgh EH3 9BX, Scotland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kiparsky (1979) proposes that the relative prominence contours of feet are preserved under morphological embedding, e.g. sènsátional → sĕnsàtionálity; àntícipate → ăntìcipátion. Kiparsky's opponents point out the existence of exceptions to such relative prominence preservation, e.g. ìnférior → ìnfĕriórity~ĭnfèriórity. In this article, it is shown that relative prominence preservation is a gradient phenomenon, which is probabilistically predicted by word frequency. This observation necessitates the rejection of the phonological cycle as the mechanism for handling relative prominence preservation – the phonological cycle predicts that relative prominence preservation should be consistently successful. In particular, it is proposed, following Bermúdez-Otero & McMahon (2006) and Bermúdez-Otero (in preparation), that the phonological cycle which applies internal to stratum one in models of Lexical Phonology should be rejected, and replaced by the mechanism of ‘fake cyclicity’. Through its resemblance to the dual-route model of lexical access, fake cyclicity can capture the probabilistic nature of relative prominence preservation.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 505 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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 article has benefited immeasurably from discussions with Heinz Giegerich, Patrick Honeybone and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, and from the comments of three anonymous reviewers. Responsibility for any omissions or errors is mine alone.

References

Anshen, F. & Aronoff, M.. 1988. Producing morphologically complex words. Linguistics 26, 641–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L.. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. English version 2.5. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor].Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R.. 2000. Towards a psycholinguistic computational model for morphological parsing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences) 358, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Schreuder, R. & Sproat, R.. 2000. Morphology in the mental lexicon: A computational model for visual word recognition. In van Eynde, F. & Gibbon, D. (eds.), Lexicon development for speech and language processing, 267–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2007. On the nature of the cycle. Handout of paper presented at the special session ‘Where is allomorphy?’, 15th Manchester Phonology Meeting, University of Manchester, 25 May 2007.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. In preparation. Stratal Optimality Theory: Synchronic and diachronic applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. & McMahon, A. M. S.. 2006. English phonology and morphology. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. M. S. (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 382–410. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Baayen, R. H. & Schreuder, R.. 2000. Effects of family size for complex words. Journal of Memory and Language 42, 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borowsky, T. 1993. On the word level. In Hargus, S. & Kaisse, E. M. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Studies in lexical phonology, vol. 4. 199–234. London: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 2002. Phonology and phonetics of English stress and vowel reduction. MS, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relations between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M.. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collie, S. 2008. English stress preservation: A case for Stratal Optimality Theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. 1980. Productivity in word formation. Papers from the sixteenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 45–51. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. 1981. Degrees of transparency in word formation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 26, 73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H.. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 15, 329–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. 2005. Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll). 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Kenstowicz, M. J.. 1991. The free element condition and cyclic vs. noncyclic stress. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 457–501.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, R.. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1989. Cyclic secondary stresses in English. WCCFL 8, 139–53.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 2003. Frequency, cyclicity, and optimality. Paper presented at the Second International Korean Phonology Conference, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39 (6), 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, J. & Baayen, H.. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. E. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 203–35. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. & Baayen, H.. 2004. Phonotactics, parsing and productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15 (1), 99–130.Google Scholar
Hay, J. & Plag, I.. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51 (3), 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. 2003. Cambridge English pronouncing dictionary. 16th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 381–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, R. 1995. English stress: re-inventing the paradigm. Review of L. Burzio, Principles of English stress (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). GLOT International 9(10), 19–21.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, J. & Laks, B. (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, vol. 1, 363–93. Salford, Manchester: European Studies Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kenyon, J. S. & Knott, T. A.. 1944/1953. A pronouncing dictionary of American English. Springfield, MA: G. C. Merriam.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10 (3), 421–41.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical Phonology and Morphology. In Yang, I. (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. 2007. Analogy: The relation between lexicon and grammar. MS, Warsaw University (version of January 2007).Google Scholar
Lee, J.-Y. 1996. Some aspects of English phonology: An optimality theoretic approach. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. & Prince, A.. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (2), 249–336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20 (1), 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQueen, J. & Cutler, A.. 1998. Morphology in word recognition. In Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A. (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 406–27. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Pater, J. 1995. On the nonuniformity of weight-to-stress and stress preservation effects in English. MS, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pater, J. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17, 237–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Deaton, K. (eds.), Papers from the 26th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, 355–98. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H.. 1995. Modelling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. (ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 131–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar