Generating configurational asymmetries in prosodic prosodic phonology
Evan Mellander / University of Leipzig
Generating Configurational Asymmetries in Prosodic Phonology
Evan Mellander – University of Leipzig
The parsing of the speech signal into prosodic units is a universal property of natural language, but
individual grammars differ with respect to the configurational properties of these constituents. In systems
with iterative foot structure, metrical feet are normally disyllabic, and occur in one of two forms:
trochaic (left-headed, e.g. English, Fijian), or iambic (right-headed, e.g. Hixkaryana, Choctaw). Rather
than being mirror-images of each other, however, the two foot types display a persistent configurational
asymmetry whereby trochaic feet prefer to be quantitatively even (bimoraic) as in (1a), while iambic feet
prefer to be quantitatively uneven (trimoraic) as in (1b). This property is known as the iambic/trochaic
law (e.g. Hayes 1995), and is reflected in foot parsing as well as through quantitative processes enforcing
canonical foot shape (McCarthy & Prince 1986; Prince 1992; Kager 1993, 1995, 1999; Alber 1997).
(1) Trochaic / Iambic Metrical Feet
(2) Trochaic / Iambic Diphthongs
a. (σ σ)Ft *(σ σ)Ft
µ µ
µµµ
b.*(σ σ)Ft
µ µ
(σ σ)Ft
µµµ
a. (µ µ)Syll *(µ)Syll
aw
aw
b.* (µ µ)Syll
wa
( µ)Syll
wa
Another cross-linguistic iambic/trochaic asymmetry can be observed at the subsyllabic level, and
concerns the moraicity of diphthongal sequences. While trochaic diphthongs (falling; e.g. English bow
[baw]) are generally bimoraic as in (2a), iambic diphthongs (rising, e.g. French bois [bwa]) are generally
monomoraic as in (2b) (Rosenthall 1994; Casali 1998; Mellander 2002; cf. Kaye 1985).
Clearly, appeal to a simple binary ‘headedness’ parameter or constraint set (cf. RHTYPE=T/I:
Prince & Smolensky 1993) is insufficient to account for these configurational asymmetries, and various
ad hoc proposals (e.g. UNEVEN-IAMB: Kager 1999; SONRISE: Rosenthall 1994) have emerged to link
headedness with particular configurations. Taking a different approach, the present paper demonstrates
that a range of phenomena can be explained by assuming an asymmetric set of rhythmic primitives which
interact to produce iambic/trochaic headedness as well as the various configurational patterns associated
with them. Building on work by Van de Vijver (1998) the analysis assumes the constraint in (3) which
demands domain-initial prominence, as well as that in (4) which militates against domain-peripheral (i.e.
both domain-initial and domain-final) prominence.
(3) PEAK-FIRST (cf. McCarthy & Prince 1986)
Metrical domains have initial prominence.
(4) *EDGEMOST (cf. van de Vijver 1998)
Metrical domains have non-peripheral prominence.
(5) Trochees
(6) Iambs
a.(* . )Ft
b.(* . )Syll
a.( . * . )Ft b.(* )Syll
µµµ
µ
µµ
µµ
σσ
aw
σ σ
wa
While trochaic configurations are characterized by initial prominence (PEAK-FIRST >> *EDGEMOST) as in
(5), iambic systems avoid both initial and final prominence under moraic analysis (*EDGEMOST >> PEAKFIRST) as in (6a). In a syllabic domain where a 2-mora maximum renders satisfaction of *EDGEMOST
impossible, a monomoraic parse as in (6b) is preferred in order to satisfy PEAK-FIRST. This mechanism
forms the basis of a parsing algorithm which accounts for the organisation of feet and the placement of
stress within prosodic words in trochaic and iambic systems alike.
The analysis illustrates how seemingly opaque configurational patterning can be generated
straightforwardly if asymmetric relations are exploited as primitives of Universal Grammar.
SELECTED REFERENCES:
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kager, René. 1993. ‘Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:381-432.
Kaye, Jonathan. 1985. ‘On the syllable structure of certain West African languages.’ In Essays in memory of M.W.K. Semikenke,
ed. D. Goyvaerts, 285-308: Benjamins.
Generating configurational asymmetries in prosodic prosodic phonology
Evan Mellander / University of Leipzig
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1986. ‘Prosodic Morphology.’ Technical Reports of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive
Science 32. Piscataway, NJ.
Mellander, Evan. 2002. A prosodic theory of prominence and rhythm. Ph.D. thesis. McGill University. Montréal.
Rosenthall, Sam. 1994. Vowel/Glide Alternation in a Theory of Constraint Interaction. Ph.D. thesis. UMass, Amherst.
Vijver, Ruben van de. 1998. The iambic issue: iambs as a result of constraint interaction. HIL dissertations 37. Holland Institute
of Generative Linguistics. Leiden