Covert Representations, Contrast, and the Acquisition of Lexical Accent

2016 ◽  
pp. 231-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Elan Dresher
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Accent

scholarly journals Is discourse made up of sentences? Focusing on dependent grafted speech in modern standard Japanese

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-180
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Sadanobu
Keyword(s):  
High Tone ◽  
The Status ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
Modern Standard ◽  
Lexical Accent

Abstract The idea that discourse is made up of sentences has been widespread among linguists. Does this traditional discourse perspective (“sententialism”) apply to casual language in daily communication? This paper examines the validity of sententialism by focusing on a type of speech called “dependent grafted speech” in Japanese conversation. Close examinations of various words, phrases, and sentences reveal that dependent grafted speech is different from sentences on two points: (i) Generally, the lexical accent of the copula at the beginning of dependent grafted speech is a high tone; and (ii) the interaction particle at the end of dependent grafted speech is not uttered with a falling intonation unless it is proceeded by a very abrupt rising intonation (“leaping” intonation). These findings cast doubt on the status of dependent grafted speech as a sentence. Moreover, they demonstrate a new conception of discourse as a mixture of diverse constituents, including sentences, dependent grafted speech, and other utterance types.

scholarly journals Correspondence between the speech production and perception of lexical accent by Kagoshima Japanese speakers

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-381
Author(s):  
Ayako Shirose ◽  
Kazuhiko Kakehi ◽  
Ichiro Ota ◽  
Shigeru Kiritani
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Japanese Speakers ◽  
Lexical Accent

Diacritic extrametricality vs. diacritic accent: a reply to Hammond

Phonology ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Franks
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Treatment ◽  
Word Stress ◽  
Primary Word ◽  
Lexical Exceptions ◽  
Regular Patterns ◽  
Lexical Accent

Although primary word stress regularly falls on the penult in Polish and on the antepenult in Macedonian, there are a number of lexical exceptions in both languages. In the first generative treatment of such exceptions, Comrie (1976) suggested two unrelated diacritic features, [± stressable] for Polish and [ ± never posttonic] for Macedonian, in order to accommodate the accentual paradigms exhibited by exceptional words within the framework of Chomsky & Halle (1968). More recently, metrical accounts of exceptional stress have been proposed in Franks (1985), Halle & Vergnaud (1987) and Rubach & Booij (1985) for Polish and in Franks (1987, forthcoming) and Halle & Vergnaud (1987) for Macedonian. These analyse deviations from the regular patterns in the two languages in completely unrelated ways – in Polish exceptional stress is a consequence of idiosyncratic extrametricality, whereas in Macedonian it results from the idiosyncratic presence of an inherent accent. Responding to this type of analysis, Hammond (1989) argues that an alternative treatment in which exceptional stress in both languages is treated similarly is conceptually more elegant and descriptively superior. He accomplishes this by employing roughly the same set of stress rules for Polish and Macedonian, with the exception that lexical accent is interpreted differently in the two languages.

scholarly journals Stress assignment in Hittite and Proto-Indo-European

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Anthony D Yates
Keyword(s):  
Common Ancestor ◽  
Theoretic Analysis ◽  
Left Edge ◽  
Stress Assignment ◽  
Primary Stress ◽  
Prosodic Word ◽  
European Languages ◽  
The Common ◽  
Lexical Accent

This paper develops a new optimality theoretic analysis of lexical accent in Hittite (Anatolian, Indo-European). I demonstrate that Hittite synchronic stress assignment is consistent with Kiparsky and Halle's (1977) Basic Accentuation Principle, which assigns primary stress to the leftmost morpheme lexically specified for prosodic prominence or else to the left edge of a prosodic word. The Hittite evidence is thus shown to converge with Kiparsky and Halle's reconstruction of this principle for the common ancestor of the non-Anatolian Indo-European languages (i.e. Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European), and in view of this agreement, argued to be reconstructible for Proto-Indo-European itself.

The effects of discourse focus and lexical accent on the prosodic phrasing in Japanese

1998 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 2890-2891
Author(s):  
Young‐Sook Choi ◽  
Shigeru Sato ◽  
Kei Yoshimoto
Keyword(s):  
Prosodic Phrasing ◽  
Lexical Accent

Lexical stresses in Macedonian and Polish

Phonology ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
The Other ◽  
Class I ◽  
The Third ◽  
Strong Claim ◽  
Lexical Accent

SummaryWe have presented two different analyses of stress in Macedonian and Polish: one in terms of CGs and the other in terms of QS/ROB footing. Further, we showed how there were a number of problems with the CG account. We now consider those problems again in light of the latter analyses above.The first problem was that the emergence of unmarked stress under suffixation did not find a uniform explanation in Macedonian and Polish. This is not true of the revised analyses. Both are couched in terms of accent and the reemergence of regular stress in both languages follows as a consequence of distribution of lexical accent. In fact, aside from the contribution of secondary stresses in Polish and their absence in Macedonian, the analyses differ minimally. Footing in Macedonian is QS; footing in Polish is ROB.A second problem for the CG was that the reemergence of unmarked stress in Polish did not find a uniform explanation. Some cases were handled with lexical extrametricality, while others were handled with the special extrametricality rule.(44)This is also not a problem for the revised analysis. Class I and class II now differ minimally in the placement of accent.The third problem discussed above was the ad hoc character of the special extrametricality rule (44). This too is no longer a problem since this rule is no longer a part of the analysis. In fact, perhaps we can make the strong claim that rules of this type are to.be excluded in principle. An even stronger claim which might be supportable, though it would require we reconsider a number of analyses, is that lexical accent can never be marked with extrametricality. We leave this latter hypothesis open.Summarising, the best analysis of Macedonian and Polish requires a theory that makes use of two different kinds of footing – quantity-sensitive (QS) and revised obligatory-branching (ROB) – and that marks accent in terms of a diacritic feature rather than in terms of grid marks without constituency. Only by adopting such a theory can we capture in a satisfying fashion the generalisation exhibited in Macedonian and Polish, that regular stress reemerges when a word with exceptional stress undergoes sufficient affixation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document