Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:09:49.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2016

Björn Köhnlein
Björn Köhnlein*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Franconian has a contrast between two tone accents, commonly referred to as Accent 1 and Accent 2. Traditional autosegmental analyses of the phenomenon suggest that this opposition derives from the presence of lexical tone. In contrast to this ‘tonal approach’, I argue that the Franconian accent contrast is based on contrastive foot structure – there is no tone in the lexicon. This ‘metrical approach’ not only accounts for the tonal differences between the accents, but also captures a variety of facts that are hard to incorporate into a synchronic tonal analysis, involving morphological alternations between Accent 1 and Accent 2, as well as the effects of vowel duration, vowel quality and consonant quality on accent-class membership. The metrical analysis of these patterns is in line with similar approaches to tone-accent contrasts in North Germanic and Scottish Gaelic.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 87 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

*

For helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers, an associate editor and the editors of Phonology, as well as Paul Boersma, Ben Hermans, Pavel Iosad, Wolfgang Kehrein and Marc van Oostendorp. Helpful suggestions also came from participants at the 21st Manchester Phonology Meeting.

References

REFERENCES

Anttila, Arto & Bodomo, Aadams (2000). Tonal polarity in Dagaare. Trends in African Linguistics 4. 119–134.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke (2000). What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 119–131.Google Scholar
Asu, Eva-Liina & Lippus, Pärtel (eds.) (2013). Nordic prosody: proceedings of the XIth conference. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Bach, Adolf (1921). Die Schärfung in der moselfränkischen Mundart von Arzbach (Unterwesterwaldkreis). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 45. 266–290.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael & Jurgec, Peter (forthcoming). Interactions of tone and ATR in Slovenian. In Kehrein, et al. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botma, Bert & Noske, Roland (eds.) (2012). Phonological explorations: empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botma, Bert & Oostendorp, Marc van (2012). A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years on. In Botma, & Noske, (2012). 135–154.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Cajot, José (2006). Phonologisch bedingter Polytonieverlust: eine tonlose Enklave südlich von Maastricht. In de Vaan, (2006). 11–23.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart (2005). Capitalistic v. militaristic: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–121.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19. 1–32.Google Scholar
Dols, Willy (1953). Sittardse diftongering. Sittard: Alberts.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Lahiri, Aditi (1991). The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English. LI 22. 251–286.Google Scholar
Fournier, Rachel (2008). Perception of the tone contrast in East Limburgian dialects. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Frings, Theodor (1913). Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Niederrheins zwischen Düsseldorf und Aachen. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. JASA 27. 765–768.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1. 126–152.Google Scholar
Gilles, Peter (2002). Einflüsse der Rheinischen Akzentuierung auf die segmentelle Ebene: Evidenz aus dem Luxemburgischen. In Auer, Peter, Gilles, Peter & Spiekermann, Helmut (eds.) Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000a). The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory. In Horne, Merle (ed.) Prosody: theory and experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000b). On the origin and development of the Central Franconian tone contrast. In Lahiri, Aditi (ed.) Analogy, levelling, markedness. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 215–260.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2007). Intonation. In Lacy, Paul de (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 253–280.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2012). Quantity or durational enhancement of tone: the case of Maastricht Limburgian high vowels. In Botma, & Noske, (2012). 241–253.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2013). From Cologne to Arzbach: an account of the Franconian ‘tone reversal’. In Asu, & Lippus, (2013). 11–24.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Peters, Jörg (2004). A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung . Phonology 21. 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1986). The obligatory-branching parameter in metrical theory. NLLT 4. 185–228.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael, Warner, Natasha, Davis, Andréa, Carnie, Andrew, Archangeli, Diana & Fisher, Muriel (2014). Vowel insertion in Scottish Gaelic. Phonology 31. 123–153.Google Scholar
Hanssen, Judith (2005). Tone and intonation in the dialect of Sittard. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heijmans, Linda (2003). The relationship between tone and vowel length in two neighbouring Dutch Limburgian dialects. In Fikkert, Paula & Jacobs, Haike (eds.) Development in prosodic systems. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 7–45.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben (2009). The phonological structure of the Limburg tonal accents. In Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip (eds.) Strength relations in phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 317–371.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben (2012). The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. In Botma, & Noske, (2012). 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuven, Vincent J. & Jonge, Mirjam de (2011). Spectral and temporal reduction as stress cues in Dutch. Phonetica 68. 120–132.Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie, Ohala, John J. & Ewan, William G. (1979). Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Lg 55. 37–58.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (2011). Pitch accent systems. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 1003–1026.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel (2015). Pitch accent and prosodic structure in Scottish Gaelic: reassessing the role of contact. In Hilpert, Martin, Jan-Ola, Östman, Mertzlufft, Christine, Rießler, Michael & Duke, Janet (eds.) New trends in Nordic and general linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iosad, Pavel (forthcoming). Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: short-vowel stød in Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jongen, R. (1972). Phonologie der Moresneter Mundart: eine Beschreibung der segmentalen und prosodischen Wortformdiakrise. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. NLLT 11. 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1995). The metrical theory of word stress. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 367–402.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang (2007). Moraic stress in Franconian – and elsewhere. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Phonetics and Phonology 4’, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang (forthcoming). There's no tone in Cologne: against tone segment interactions in Franconian. In Kehrein, et al. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang, Köhnlein, Björn, Boersma, Paul & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.) (forthcoming). Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. (2012). The perception of lexical stress in German: effects of segmental duration and vowel quality in different prosodic patterns. Phonetica 69. 68–93.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2011). Rule reversal revisited: synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2013). Optimizing the relation between tone and prominence: evidence from Franconian, Scandinavian, and Serbo-Croatian tone accent systems. Lingua 131. 1–28.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2015a). A tonal semi-reversal in Franconian dialects: Rule A vs. Rule B. North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 68. 81–112.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (2015b). The complex durational relationship of contour tones and level tones. Diachronica 32. 231–267.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn (forthcoming). Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: a metrical approach. In Kehrein, et al. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet (2005a). Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28. 61–96.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Ingvar P. M. (1995). On the Swedish pitch accents. MA thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available as ROA-110 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). The prosody of phase in Rotuman. NLLT 18. 147–197.Google Scholar
Martínez-Paricio, Violeta (2013). An exploration of minimal and maximal feet. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (2005). Danish stød and Eastern Norwegian pitch accent: the myth of lexical tones. Paper presented at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (2007). Central Swedish pitch accent: a retro approach. Paper presented at the 4th Old World Conference in Phonology, Rhodes.Google Scholar
Morén-Duolljá, Bruce (2013). The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: no lexical tones required. Nordlyd 40. 196–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2004). Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 141–163.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1997). Some theoretical issues in Estonian prosody. In Lehiste, & Ross, (1997). 165–195.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2005). Expressing inflection tonally. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4. 107–126.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (forthcoming). Tone, final devoicing and assimilation in Moresnet. In Kehrein, et al. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Peters, Jörg (2006). The Cologne word accent revisited. In de Vaan, (2006). 107–133.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, Markus (2006). The structure of length. PhD dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.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
Riad, Tomas (1998). The origin of Scandinavian tone accents. Diachronica 15. 63–98.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (2006). Scandinavian accent typology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59. 36–55.Google Scholar
Rice, Curt (1992). Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: parametric extensions. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (1986). Die Mittelfränkischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentuierung) . Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich & Künzel, Hermann J. (2006). Das Rätsel löst sich: Phonetik und sprachhistorische Genese der Tonakzente im Regelumkehrgebiet (Regel B). In de Vaan, (2006). 135–163.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1996). The initial state and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory. Ms, Johns Hopkins University. Available as ROA-154 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Spahr, Christopher (2013). Rethinking the morphophonology of Estonian quantity. In Asu, & Lippus, (2013). 363–371.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen & Zimmermann, Eva (2014). Generalised mora affixation and quantity-manipulating morphology. Phonology 31. 463–510.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice E. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (2007). Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. JPh 35. 445–472.Google Scholar
Vaan, Michiel de (ed.) (2006). Germanic tone accents: proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, 13–14 June 2003. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Werth, Alexander (2011). Perzeptionsphonologische Grundlagen der Prosodie: eine Analyse der mittelfränkischen Tonakzentdistinktion. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (2002). Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar