Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:12:17.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The odd-parity input problem in metrical stress theory*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2012

Brett Hyde
Brett Hyde*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the weak layering approach to prosodic structure (Itô & Mester 1992), the requirement that output forms be exhaustively parsed into binary feet, even when the input contains an odd-number of syllables, results in the odd-parity input problem, which consists of two sub-problems. The odd heavy problem is a pathological type of quantity-sensitivity where a single odd-numbered heavy syllable in an odd-parity output is parsed as a monosyllabic foot. The even output problem is the systematic conversion of odd-parity inputs to even-parity outputs. The article examines the typology of binary stress patterns predicted by two approaches, symmetrical alignment (McCarthy & Prince 1993) and iterative foot optimisation (Pruitt 2008, 2010), to demonstrate that the odd-parity input problem is pervasive in weak layering accounts. It then demonstrates that the odd-parity input problem can be avoided altogether under the alternative structural assumptions of weak bracketing (Hyde 2002).

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , December 2012 , pp. 383 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

*

Thanks to Birgit Alber, Eric Baković, Paula Houghton, Joe Pater and Kathryn Pruitt for helpful discussion of the issues addressed here. Thanks especially to Alan Prince not only for many helpful discussions but also for numerous detailed comments on early drafts of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Alber, Birgit (2005). Clash, lapse and directionality. NLLT 23. 485–542.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni, Itô, Junko & Mester, R. Armin (1984). The formal representation of ambisyllabicity: evidence from Danish. NELS 14. 34–48.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2009). Locality in metrical typology. Phonology 26. 389–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik (1996). Scandinavian ‘level stress’ and the theory of prosodic overlay. Nordlyd 24. 23–62.Google Scholar
Chen-Main, Joan (2006). On the generation and linearization of multi-dominance structures. PhD dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. 1–28. Reprinted in Adriana Belletti (ed.) (2004). Structures and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Google Scholar
Cooper, Grosvenor & Meyer, Leonard (1960). The rhythmic structure of music. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan & Hewitt, Mark S. (1995). Directional footing, degeneracy, and alignment. NELS 25:1. 47–61.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2000). Morphological haplology and correspondence. In de Lacy, Paul & Nowak, Anita (eds.) UMOP 24: papers from the 25th reunion. Amherst : GLSA. 51–88.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. (1985). Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. Dallas : Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977a). A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977b). Some phonological rules in Yidiny. LI 8. 1–34.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1981). Wargamay. In Dixon, R. M. W & Blake, Barry J. (eds.) Handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 2. Amsterdam : Benjamins. 1–144.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Lahiri, Aditi (1991). The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English. LI 22. 251–286.Google Scholar
Echeverria, Max S. & Contreras, Heles (1965). Araucanian phonemics. IJAL 31. 132–135.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. (1996). Prosodic levels and constraints in Banawa and Suruwaha. Ms, University of Pittsburgh. Available as ROA-121 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Furby, Christine (1974). Garawa phonology. Canberra : Australian National University.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). English phonology: an introduction. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. NLLT 20. 491–552.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2011). Stress: phonotactic and phonetic evidence. In van Oostendorp, et al. (2011). 924–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael & Dupoux, Emmanuel (1996). Psychophonology. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.) Current trends in phonology: models and methods. Vol. 1. Salford : ESRI. 283–306.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kenneth C. & Hansen, Lesley E. (1969). Pintupi phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8. 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1985). Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. BLS 11. 429–446.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise A. (1986). Victorian languages: a late survey. Canberra : Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben (2011). The representation of word stress. In van Oostendorp, et al. (2011). 980–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, Mark S. (1994). Deconstructing foot binarity in Koniag Alutiiq. Ms, University of British Columbia. Available as ROA-12 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2001). Metrical and prosodic structure in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-476 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2002). A restrictive theory of metrical stress. Phonology 19. 313–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2007). Non-finality and weight-sensitivity. Phonology 24. 287–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2008), The Odd-Parity Parsing Problem. Ms, Washington University in St Louis. Available as ROA-971 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2011). The Iambic–Trochaic Law. In van Oostendorp, et al. (2011). 1052–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett (forthcoming). Layering and directionality: metrical stress in Optimality Theory. London : Equinox.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, R. Armin (1992). Weak layering and word binarity. Report LRC-92-09, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht : Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. NLLT 11. 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, René (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Handout of paper presented at the 5th Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, Potsdam. Available as ROA-514 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kager, René (2005). Rhythmic licensing theory: an extended typology. Proceedings of the 3rd Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (SICOL). Seoul : Linguistic Society of Korea. 5–31.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1995). Cyclic vs. non-cyclic constraint evaluation. Phonology 12. 397–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Wayne P. (1997). Haplology and vowel underspecification. In Haraguchi, Shosuke (ed.) Report of the special research project for the typological investigation of the languages and cultures of the east and west. Tsukuba : University of Tsukuba. 381–388.Google Scholar
Leben, William R. (1980). A metrical analysis of length. LI 11. 497–509.Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff (1985). Toward a metrical interpretation of Yupik prosody. In Krauss, Michael (ed.) Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: descriptive and comparative studies. Fairbanks : Alaska Native Language Center. 159–172.Google Scholar
Lerdahl, Fred & Jackendoff, Ray (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press.Google Scholar
LeSourd, Philip S. (1993). Accent and syllable structure in Passamaquoddy. New York : Garland.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark (1975). The intonational system of English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London : Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matteson, Esther (1965). The Piro (Arawakan) language. Berkeley : University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mellander, Evan W. (2003). (HL)-creating processes in a theory of foot structure. The Linguistic Review 20. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht : Foris.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) (2011). The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass. : Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan (1980). A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. LI 11. 511–562.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002). Arguing optimality. In Carpenter, Angela C., Coetzee, Andries W. & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst : GLSA. 269–304.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
Pruitt, Kathryn (2008). Iterative foot optimization and locality in rhythmic word stress. Ms, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available as ROA-999 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Kathryn (2010). Serialism and locality in constraint-based metrical parsing. Phonology 27. 481–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Curt (1992). Binarity and ternarity in metrical theory: parametric extensions. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1996). Shortening and ambisyllabicity in English. Phonology 13. 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563–605.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew (1996). Phonology: theory and description. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass. : Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal (2001). Move dissolves into Merge: a theory of locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell T. (1967). Nengone grammar. Canberra : Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell T. (1970). An introduction to Maranungku. Canberra : Australian National University.Google Scholar
Vaysman, Olga (2009). Segmental alternations and metrical theory. PhD dissertation, MIT. Available as ROA-1011 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Vijver, Ruben van de (1998). The iambic issue: iambs as a result of constraint interaction. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Hyde Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hyde Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 1.1 MB